System and method for evaluating defined contribution plans

ABSTRACT

A system and method for comparing retirement plans against a selected group of similar plans is disclosed. In one embodiment, a computer system for evaluating a retirement plan comprises a computer server having a database comprising a plurality of data defining a plurality of characteristics of each of a plurality of retirement plans, software configured for identifying a subset of the plurality of retirement plans having characteristics comparable to characteristics of a selected retirement plan, software configured for permitting the selection of at least one report from a plurality of report types, and software configured for automatically generating the selected at least one report, where the at least one report comprises an evaluation of the characteristics of the selected retirement plan against the characteristics of the subset of the plurality of retirement plans.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims priority from U.S. Provisional PatentApplication Ser. No. 61/218,313, filed Jun. 18, 2009, which isincorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 24 million baby boomers will retireover the next ten years. Traditionally, Defined Benefit (DB) Plans(i.e., employer-provided pensions) were an employee's primary source forincome during their retirement. In recent years, however, employers andthe retirement industry as a whole have shifted away from DB Planstoward Defined Contribution (DC) Plans, such as 401(k) Plans, profitsharing Plans, money purchase Plans and the like.

Today, there are literally hundreds of thousands of different 401(k)Plans, each having any number of Plan designs, services, and feesassociated with them. In addition, ERISA requires that Plan Sponsorsensure that Plan fees are “reasonable.” To do this, Plan Sponsorstraditionally employ a laborious Request for Proposal (RFP) process thatis not only expensive and time consuming but is also limiting in termsof the ability of a Plan Sponsor to compare one Plan to another.Consequently, Plan Sponsors using traditional methods may not be able todetermine whether or not the fees that are charged to a DC Plan arereasonable and equitable in view of the services the Plan receives ascompared to the fees and services associated with other Plans.

For example, a DC Plan, such as a 401(k) Plan, may pay fees to a numberof entities that provide services to the Plan Sponsor, such as fees thatpay for record keeping, fees that pay for advisors/consultants, feesthat pay for investment managers, and fees paid to others for a varietyof services. In addition, Plan fees may include different types of fees,such as investment fees, commissions, finders' fees, managed accountfees. Exacerbating the difficulty of determining how much, to whom, andwhen fees are paid is the fact that many of the fees associated with agiven Plan are completely hidden to the Plan Sponsor.

That said, fees may contribute only one aspect of determining the“value” of a given Plan to a Plan Sponsor. The Plan Sponsor may bewilling to pay higher fees, for example, if the services that the Planreceives in return are better than the average for similarly constructedPlans. Likewise, the Plan Sponsor may be less willing to pay higher feesif the services that the Plan receives in return are less than averagefor similarly constructed Plans. Consequently, a method and system forcomparing DC Plans and which takes into account not only the fees thatare paid for various services that a Plan receives, but also thequantity and quality of services that the Plan receives would assistPlan Sponsors, Recordkeepers, Advisor/Consultants, and the like inevaluating a given Plan against other similarly structured Plans.

A challenge to making this comparison is determining what “other” Plansshould be used for this comparison, as well as what features, aspects,and considerations of the “other” Plans that should be used in order tomake an apples-to-apples comparison of a selected Plan's fees, design,support and services. Another challenge is determining how best todisplay and/or report the comparison in a meaningful manner to quicklyidentify a given Plan's quantitative and qualitative aspects relative tothe “other” Plans.

Once a meaningful comparison is made, the various aspects and featuresof a given Plan may become transparent to the Plan Sponsor so as to makean informed decision as to the Plan's overall value, as well as to leadto clearer documentation of fiduciary objectives, better assistance forPlan Participants, lower potential levels of litigation, and objectivelymanage Plan fees and services.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A method of evaluating a retirement plan is disclosed comprising thesteps of receiving a plurality of data corresponding to a plurality ofretirement plans, storing the data in memory on at least oneweb-accessible computer, determining a subset of the plurality ofretirement plans, comparing characteristics of the selected retirementplan to corresponding characteristics of the subset of the plurality ofretirement plans, selecting at least one report for reporting thecomparison of the selected retirement plan to the subset of theplurality of retirement plans, and automatically generating the selectedat least one report.

In one embodiment, the step of determining the subset of the pluralityof retirement plans comprises identifying the characteristics of theselected retirement plan that correspond to at least one factor, andidentifying which of the plurality of retirement plans havecharacteristics that correspond to the at least one factor and which areidentical to the identified characteristics of the selected retirementplan or which correspond to a predefined range bracketing the identifiedcharacteristics of the selected retirement plan. The at least one factormay comprise at least one of an amount of plan assets, a number of planparticipants, a last year the plan was bid or reviewed, a type ofcompany industry, a plan type, whether the plan includes an automaticparticipant enrollment feature, whether the plan includes an employermatch feature, a percentage of plan assets held in index funds, and apercentage of plan assets held in managed accounts.

In an embodiment, the step of comparing characteristics of the selectedretirement plan to corresponding characteristics of the subset of theplurality of retirement plans comprises comparing fees paid by theselected retirement plan against fees paid by the subset of theplurality of retirement plans. In another embodiment, the step ofcomparing characteristics of the selected retirement plan tocorresponding characteristics of the subset of the plurality ofretirement plans comprises comparing at least one investment option ofthe selected retirement plan against at least one investment option ofthe subset of the plurality of retirement plans. In a furtherembodiment, the step of comparing characteristics of the selectedretirement plan to corresponding characteristics of the subset of theplurality of retirement plans comprises comparing the complexity of theselected retirement plan against the complexity of the subset of theplurality of retirement plans. In another embodiment, the step ofcomparing characteristics of the selected retirement plan tocorresponding characteristics of the subset of the plurality ofretirement plans comprises comparing at least one participant successmeasure of the selected retirement plan against the corresponding atleast one success measure of the subset of the plurality of retirementplans.

In one embodiment, the at least one report is pre-configured or isuser-customizable. The method may further comprise a web portalinterface for receiving the plurality of data from a user, the webportal interface dynamically including and excluding data entry fieldsaccording to selections received by the user.

In an embodiment, the characteristics of the selected retirement planinclude at least one fee. The method may further comprise the step ofidentifying the at least one fee associated with the selected retirementplan. In another embodiment, the characteristics of the selectedretirement plan include at least one source for at least one fee. Themethod may further comprise the step of identifying the at least onesource for the at least one fee associated with the selected retirementplan. The step of identifying the at least one source for the at leastone fee may comprise identifying imbedded fees associated with theselected retirement plan.

A computer system for evaluating a retirement plan is disclosedcomprising a computer server having a database, the database comprisinga plurality of data defining a plurality of characteristics of each of aplurality of retirement plans, a computer-readable medium encoded with afirst computer program executable by a computer for determining a subsetof the plurality of retirement plans having characteristics comparableto characteristics of a selected retirement plan, a computer-readablemedium encoded with a second computer program executable by the computerfor permitting the selection of at least one report, and acomputer-readable medium encoded with a third computer programexecutable by the computer for automatically generating the selected atleast one report, where the at least one report comprises a comparisonof the characteristics of the selected retirement plan against thecharacteristics of the subset of the plurality of retirement plans.

In one embodiment, the subset of the plurality of retirement plans isdetermined by identifying the characteristics of the selected retirementplan that correspond to at least one factor, and identifying which ofthe plurality of retirement plans have characteristics that correspondto the at least one factor and which are identical to the identifiedcharacteristics of the selected retirement plan or which correspond to apredefined range bracketing the identified characteristics of theselected retirement plan.

The at least one factor may comprise at least one of an amount of planassets, a number of plan participants, a last year the plan was bid orreviewed, a type of company industry, a plan type, whether the planincludes an automatic participant enrollment feature, whether the planincludes an employer match feature, a percentage of plan assets held inindex funds, and a percentage of plan assets held in managed accounts.

In an embodiment, the comparison of the characteristics of the selectedretirement plan comprises a comparison of the fees paid by the selectedretirement plan against the fees paid by the subset of the plurality ofretirement plans. In another embodiment, the comparison of thecharacteristics of the selected retirement plan comprises a comparisonof at least one investment option of the selected retirement planagainst at least one investment option of the subset of the plurality ofretirement plans. In a further embodiment, the comparison of thecharacteristics of the selected retirement plan comprises a comparisonof the complexity of the selected retirement plan against the complexityof the subset of the plurality of retirement plans. In anotherembodiment, the comparison of the characteristics of the selectedretirement plan comprises a comparison of at least one participantsuccess measure of the selected retirement plan against thecorresponding at least one success measure of the subset of theplurality of retirement plans. The computer system may further include aweb portal interface for receiving retirement plan data.

A retirement plan comparison report is disclosed comprising a first dataset corresponding to a selected retirement plan and a second data setcorresponding to a subset of a plurality of retirement plans. The subsetof the plurality of retirement plans is determined by identifyingcharacteristics of the selected retirement plan that correspond to atleast one factor, and identifying which of the plurality of retirementplans have characteristics corresponding to the at least one factor andwhich are identical to the identified characteristics of the selectedretirement plan or which correspond to a predefined range bracketing theidentified characteristics of the selected retirement plan. Theretirement plan comparison report additionally includes a comparison ofthe first data set against the second data set comprising a comparisonof at least one of participant success measures, fees paid, plan designprovisions, plan complexity, fiduciary oversight services, fiduciarybest practices services, plan-driven services, participant-drivenservices, timeliness of provided services, and accuracy of providedservices.

In one embodiment, the comparison of the first data set and against thesecond data set is one of qualitative and quantitative.

The at least one factor may comprise at least one of an amount of planassets, a number of plan participants, a last year the plan was bid orreviewed, a type of company industry, a plan type, whether the planincludes an automatic participant enrollment feature, whether the planincludes an employer match feature, a percentage of plan assets held inindex funds, and a percentage of plan assets held in managed accounts.

In one embodiment, participant success measures comprises at least oneof a participation rate, an average deferral percentage for non-highlycompensated employees, an average deferral percentage for non-highlycompensated employees, an average deferral percentage for highlycompensated employees, a percentage of participants maximizing a companymatch feature, a percentage of assets in automatically diversifiedoptions, a percent of eligible participants making catch-upcontributions, a percentage of participants using an automatic rebalanceoption, a percentage of participants using an automatic investmentselection feature, a percentage of terminated participants that have notcashed out their assets, a percentage of participants with a personalretirement goal, and a percentage of participants on track to achievetheir personal goal.

Fees paid may comprise at least one of fees paid at a plan sponsorlevel, fees paid at a participant level, and fees paid at a plan level.A comparison of the fees paid may comprise determining a reasonablenessof the fees paid in view of a qualitative assessment of the selectedretirement plan and of the subset of the plurality of retirement plans.

Plan complexity may comprise at least one of plan eligibility features,employee contribution features, employer contribution features, planinvestment features, and plan distribution features. Fiduciary oversightservices may comprise at least one of plan design services, planadministration services, plan communications services, plan investmentservices, plan fee services, and plan company stock services.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

For a better understanding of the invention, reference may be had topreferred embodiments shown in the following drawings in which:

FIG. 1 illustrates one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 2 illustrates one embodiment of a platform architecture of thesystem shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 3 illustrates one embodiment of a hardware infrastructure for theembodiment shown in FIG. 1;

FIGS. 4 a-4 z illustrate an exemplary report as may be output by theembodiment shown in FIG. 1;

FIGS. 5 a-5 q illustrate another embodiment of a report that may beoutput from the embodiment shown in FIG. 1;

FIGS. 6 a-6 j illustrate yet another embodiment of a report that may beoutput from the embodiment shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 7 illustrates one embodiment of a login screen;

FIG. 8 illustrates one embodiment of a user registration screen;

FIG. 9 illustrates one embodiment of a “Welcome” screen;

FIG. 10 illustrates one embodiment of an “Add a Plan” screen;

FIGS. 11 a-11 q illustrate an embodiment of a “Guide To Survey QuestionsAnd Data Elements;”

FIGS. 12 a-12 b illustrate an embodiment of a Plan summary and selectionscreen;

FIG. 13 illustrates an embodiment of a data entry screen;

FIGS. 14 a-14 s illustrate embodiments of Plan data input screens;

FIGS. 15 a-15 j illustrate embodiments of data elements corresponding toa first exemplary report;

FIGS. 16 a-16 w illustrate embodiments of data elements corresponding toa second exemplary report; and

FIGS. 17 a-17 z illustrate embodiments of data elements corresponding toa third exemplary report.

DEFINITIONS

“Plan” means any Defined Contribution Plan, including, 401(k), 403(b),457, profit sharing, and money purchase Plans.

“Plan Sponsor” means the employer or offeror of the Plan to the PlanParticipant.

“Plan Participant” means the employee or beneficiary of the Plan.

“Plan Advisor” means anyone who provides consulting services to the PlanSponsor, such as how and where to invest Plan assets.

“Service Provider” means any provider of any service to or for the Plan,including, Record keeper; Advisor/Consultant; Investment manager; andManaged Accounts Provider and other service providers.

“Record keeper” means anyone who keeps records for a Plan.

“Investment Manager” means anyone who manages Plan investment options.

“Managed Accounts Provider” means a Service Provider that offers anInternet-based service comprising the creation, implementation, andmonitoring of personalized retirement plans for Plan Participants. Theservices offered by a Managed Accounts Provider are elective in natureand result in additional fees to a given Plan.

“Other Provider” means other providers of services to the Plan,including, legal, accountant, and tax services.

“Third Party Administrator” means anyone who designs and/or administers401(k) Plans for Plan Sponsors, and who may ensure compliance with ERISAand the IRS.

“TPA” means Third Party Administrator.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Turning now to the figures, wherein like reference numerals refer tolike elements, there is illustrated in FIG. 1 one embodiment of thepresent invention. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, system 10 includes aweb-based user interface portal 20 for entering a variety of Plan, forexample, data 25, into database 90 by a User 16, comprising at least oneof, for example, a Plan Sponsor, a Recordkeeper, a Third PartyAdministrator, and an Advisor Consultant, registration/login module 15to permit authenticated login access to authorize a User 16 of system10, a data entry module for facilitating the entry of Plan data 25 intosystem 10, database 90 for storage and retrieval of a Plan data 25 for amultitude of Plans, Benchmark Group module 100 for determining anappropriate Benchmark Group of Plans that are similar in size, fees,features and services, among others, to the Plan, report generationengine 110 for generating a selected report on demand or atpredetermined intervals as may be selected by User 16, and deliverymeans 80 for delivering the selected report to User 16.

As shown in FIG. 1, Plan data 25 that may be entered into system 10 mayinclude, for example, success measures data 30 (e.g., Plan participationrate), Plan design and fees data 40 (e.g., fees to Recordkeepers andPlan eligibility information), investment data (not shown) (e.g.,investment offering information), fiduciary services, advisor services,and advisor satisfaction data 50 (e.g., Advisor/Consultant supportservices and fee information), administrative services data 60 (e.g.,Participant-driven administration services), and timeliness and accuracyfactors data 70 (e.g., factors that might be Participant-driven orPlan-driven). Each of these will be discussed in more detail below.

Moving to FIG. 2, there is shown an exemplary platform architecture forsystem 10. For example, system 10 may include web user interface tier114, middleware tier 120, and database tier 144. Web user interface tier114 may include platform user interface pages 115 for interacting withsystem 10, and particularly, for entering Plan data 25 into database 90,and for selecting one or more pre-styled reports 118 or for selectingone or more options for customizing a user-customizable report 118.

As shown in FIG. 2, middleware tier 120 may include various businessobjects 122, various list functions 132, database abstraction layer 140,and report generation engine 110. Business objects 122 may furthercomprise a report bean 124, a client bean 128, a Plan bean 130, andother objects, such as a Benchmark Group bean (not shown). Each of thesebusiness objects 122 may include software, one or more CPU's and memoryto perform the functions of displaying HTML user interface pages 115 ina web browser and dynamically interacting with User 16, acquiring Plandata 25 or other input data or input selections from User 16,temporarily storing all input data in memory, real-time automaticallyand dynamically adjusting or manipulating user interface pages 115 inresponse to various user selections and/or data input by toggling on andoff subsequent input fields and selections according to pre-programmedrules, and causing the permanent storage of input data and userselections in database 90. Consequently, User 16 may enter Plan data 25after logging into web portal 20 and, using user interface pages 115,interact with business objects 122 of middleware tier 120.

By way of example, when entering data, such as Plan data 25, Plan bean130 may temporarily receive and store the Plan data in middleware memoryuntil such time as the User 16 has entered all of the Plan data. Uponclicking a “Save and Continue” button, for example, on a web page byUser 16, software of business object 122 may then command the permanentstorage of the data into database 90 of database tier 144. Similarly,when User 16 enters information about themselves, for example, afterregistering as a “new user” in web portal 20, client bean 128 maypresent user interface pages 115 having various fields for entering suchitems as user name, address, etc. Once User 16 has completed enteringdata about itself on a particular web page, client bean 128 may thencause this data to be permanently stored in database 90 when User 16clicks on a “Save and Continue” button to, for example, cause the systemto display another web page or data entry screen.

Instead of entering data, User 16 may also be presented with variousobjects 132 connected to various lists stored in database 90. Forexample, User 16 may select an icon on a user interface page 115 thatcalls up and displays previously entered and stored Plan list data, userdata, or account information data from database 90. Consequently,various objects 132 may comprise read-only functions for retrievingpreviously entered data from database 90 and displaying this data inuser interface pages 115.

Also shown in FIG. 2 is database 90 of database tier 144. Database 90may be configured for permanently storing Plan, client (e.g., user) data146 and the like as well as permanently storing any other documents,such as previously prepared reports 118 for later recall should User 16so elect.

FIG. 3 shows one embodiment of a hardware infrastructure that may beemployed for the operation of system 10, comprising database layer 150,application server layer 152, web layer 156, and Internet layer 160. Forexample, database layer 150 may include database server 151 comprisingdatabase 90 which may include various data 146 and documents 148.Database server 151 may be connected to batch processor 153 ofapplication server layer 152. Batch processor 153 may execute businessobjects 122, various objects 132, and report generation engine 110 to,for example, execute software programs to analyze, store data or forgenerating reports.

Batch processor 153 may be connected to web layer 156 comprising one ormore web servers 157 for communicating with User 16 via the Internet. Asshown in FIG. 3, web server 157 may operate behind firewall 158 toprotect data stored on database 90 from malicious attack. Communicationweb server 157 may operate to deliver various web pages and otherdocuments to User 16 using a web browser and who may be logged into webportal 20. Such web pages may include platform user interface pages 115.The software represented by business objects 122 may be executed bybatch processor 153 and temporarily stored in batch processor 153 aspreviously described.

In addition, when a user selects or requests a particular report 118,batch processor 153, through business objects 122, may execute softwareof report generation engine 110 to generate the selected report usingdata stored on database server 151 of database 90. When such softwarecompletes the preparation of the selected report 118, system 10 may thencommunicate that report back to User 16 through business objects 122 andthrough web server 157 and post the selected report 118 on web portal 20for retrieval or download by User 16 subject to, for example, enteringinto a payment arrangement with the operator or administrator of webportal 20 before system 10 releases or otherwise allows access to report118 by User 16. Consequently, at some point prior to User 16 obtaining adeliverable, such as a selected report 118, User 16 may be asked toprovide payment to the operator or administrator of web portal 20.Alternatively, access to system 10 by User 16 may be in the form of asubscription spanning a particular time period, such as a month or ayear. In this way, either a limited or unlimited quantity of reports118, as determined by the subscription arrangement, may be delivered toUser 16 within the subscription period.

Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 1, system 10 may communicate theselected report 118 to User 16 by sending the selected report 118 as anattachment, such as a PDF, to an email to User 16. In anotherembodiment, system 10 may communicate the selected report 118 to User 16by causing the selected report 118 to display in a web browser on acomputer screen operated by User 16. Such display may be effected inreal-time or near real time, depending on how quickly system 10 canperform the calculations necessary to generate the selected report 118and transmit the selected report 118 to User 16's computer, as well asthe connectivity and available bandwidth that exists between User 16'scomputer and the hardware elements of system 10 that generate andtransmit the selected report 118. In another embodiment, system 10 maycommunicate the selected report 118 to User 16 using any otherelectronic or tangible means (e.g., via CD, flash drive, etc.) as may beselected by User 16. In yet another embodiment, system 10 maycommunicate the selected report 118 to User 16 via cellularcommunications, facsimile communications, radio frequency, Wi-Fi,satellite communications, and the like. User 16 may also schedule thedelivery of a selected report 118 at scheduled times or intervals as maybe selected by User 16 in web portal 20.

As shown in FIG. 3, network router 161 of internet layer 160 may operateto complete the transmission of various web pages and documents, such asuser selected reports to platform user interface pages 115. Also shownin FIG. 3 is network switch 154, which may operate to connect multiplecomputers together behind the firewall 158. Lastly, as shown in FIG. 3,database server 151 may be directly connected to web server 157 topermit various objects 132 to communicate previously entered data fromdatabase 90 to User 16 without any processing of the data.

In one embodiment, report generation engine 110 prepares one or morereports 118 using various software means, including Big Faceless JavaReport Generator (available at http://big.faceless.org/), which takesXML data, such as Plan data 25 stored in database 90, and converts suchdata into PDF format. In another embodiment, report generation engine110 uses Microsoft Excel to create charts and tables, which may beassembled using, for example, Microsoft Publisher and output to, forexample, PDF and delivered to User 16 as described above. Report 118 mayalternatively be formatted for delivery to User 16 as JPEG, TIFF, as aMicrosoft Word document, as HTML web pages, or any other report formatsuitable for displaying comparison information between a selected Planand a suitable Benchmark Group on either a computer display or in hardcopy form.

In one embodiment, database 90 may manage and store all data that itacquires using, for example, a MySQL database with a standby server. Inone embodiment, all of the data that is stored on database 90 may becentrally stored on database server 151. In another embodiment, data maybe stored on many database servers 151 distributed and/or locatedthroughout the world.

Data may make its way into database 90 of system 10 by any number ofdifferent ways. As shown in FIG. 1, data may be directly entered by User16 into system 10 via web portal 20. Alternatively, system 10 maycollect Plan data 25 through automated direct data feeds, which may bescheduled on demand or at regular or irregular intervals, throughuploads from third party investment databases, or through proprietaryprocessing of government Plan databases. Data entry through web portal20 may also be performed by an Advisor/Consultant, a Recordkeeper, or byany other Service Provider of a particular Plan, and in some instancesthe Plan Sponsor may enter the data themselves. Alternatively, Plan data25 may be entered by the operator or administrator of database 90, or bya subcontracted third party.

To ensure that Plan comparisons against a Benchmark Group of Plans areas relevant and accurate as possible, system 10 may collect and reportcurrent, actual Plan data. In one embodiment, fee and service data for aparticular Plan must have been bid or reviewed within the last threeyears to avoid stale data from becoming part of the Benchmark Group ofPlans. Entry of data within a given time period may help to ensure thatsystem 10 acquires only relatively new or current information. Forexample, system 10 may restrict data entry on web portal 20 to Plan datathat is less than a prescribed time period, such as less than threemonths old. Similarly, system 10 may restrict data from automatic datafeeds to real Plan data that is less than, for example, one month old.Some information, such as platform data from, for example,Recordkeepers, may be updated quarterly, or at any other interval, insystem 10. Basic investment information may be updated monthly, forexample, from the Service Provider.

To compare a given Plan against a database of Plans, system 10 may takeinto consideration a number of “fee components” and a number of “valuecomponents.” “Fee components” may include, for example, fees to a Plan'sRecordkeepers, fees to Advisor, Consultants of the Plan, fees to moneymanagers or investment managers of Plan assets, and fees to otherService Providers. “Value components” may include various measures of aPlan Participant's success at meeting their goals, Plan complexity, thetype and quality of fiduciary support, the type and number of Planservices that the Plan includes, the type and number of Participantservices that the Plan includes, and the type and quality of variousservice standards of the Plan.

To construct one or more reports 118 that compare a given Plan against acomputer-selected group of plans (a “Benchmark Group of Plans”) selectedfrom a database of Plans, and in particular a given Plan's fees,services, and overall value as compared to other, similarly structuredPlans, a multi-step process may be employed comprising: (1) determininga Benchmark Group of Plans, (2) comparing Plan fees to the feesassociated with the Benchmark Group of Plans, (3) comparing Plan valueto the value associated with the Benchmark Group of Plans, and (4)determining the reasonableness of the Plan's fees in view of the Plan'svalue. This multi-step process may involve more than or fewer than thesesteps depending on what specific comparisons and/or reports may bedesired by User 16.

The first step is to determine a Benchmark Group of Plans comprising anumber of Plans from database 90 that are most similar to the givenPlan. This task of determining a Benchmark Group of Plans from database90, which may comprise potentially hundreds of thousands of plans andmillions of records, is challenging at least because DefinedContribution Plans come in a myriad of shapes and sizes, where no twoPlans are exactly identical. However, system 10 may consider a number of“sort factors,” such as relative Plan size and relative number of PlanParticipants, to quickly identify from database 90 which Plans are mostsimilar to the given Plan.

In one embodiment, the Benchmark Group of Plans may be determined fromapproximately nine relevant sort factors, including the dollar amount ofPlan assets, the number of Plan Participants, the last year that thePlan Sponsor or Recordkeeper, for example, reviewed its Plan or bid on aPlan, the relevant company industry of the Plan Sponsor, the Plan type,whether or not the Plan uses automatic enrollment for Plan participants,whether and how much the employer matches contributions to the Plan fromPlan participants, the percent of Plan assets invested in Index funds,and the percent of Plan assets in managed accounts, so as to filterdatabase 90 of potentially hundreds of thousands of Plans to the Plansthat are most relevant for comparison purposes to the selected Plan.Other embodiments may require more or fewer number of sort factors todetermine a relevant Benchmark Group of Plans.

System 10 may determine a Benchmark Group of Plans that is tailored tothe given Plan's characteristics. For example, system 10 may identifyplans in database 90 with similar economic profiles, cost structures anddesigns. By grouping plans in this way, system 10 may generate one ormore reports 118 that enable a Plan Sponsor, for example, to accuratelyassess a given Plan's fees, support, services, and success measuresrelative to the Benchmark Group of Plans.

For example, Plan size and number of Plan Participants may be selectedas within a similar range of sizes and number of Participants to ensurematching economic profiles. In addition, by considering only those Plansthat have bid or reviewed fees and services within, for example, threeyears may help to ensure that the Benchmark Group of Plans reflectrelatively current assessment of the marketplace. It may also beinappropriate to compare a Plan with 100% passive investments to onewith 100% active investments because the 100% passive Plan may havesubstantially lower costs due to the fiduciary's belief in indexing.However, costs associated with a 100% passive Plan may be high whencompared to other passively managed Plans. Therefore, under certaincircumstances, it may be useful to compare Plans with similaractive/passive investment ratios. It may also be useful to compare Planswith similar exposure to Managed Accounts because Managed Accountsprovide Plan Participants with an important additional service, albeitat higher structural costs. A Plan's participation and deferral ratescan be directly related to the presence of an employer match or use of“auto” features. Consequently, grouping Plans of similar designs mayhelp to determine what additional factors may generate betterParticipant behaviors. Establishing a Benchmark Group of Plans andcomparing the Plan to the Benchmark Group of Plans in this way ensuresan apples-to-apples comparison of various aspects of the Plan to thosein the Benchmark Group of Plans, leading to better, more informeddecision making by, for example, a Plan Sponsor.

To arrive at a Benchmark Group of Plans, system 10 may employpre-programmed rules that may flexibly set the criteria for each sortfactor depending on the system's analysis of the makeup of the plans indatabase 90. For example, system 10 may set ranges of the dollar amountof Plan assets to 0 to $20 million, $21-$50 million, $51-$100 million,etc., depending on the distribution of Plans that fall into eachrespective range or “bin.” System 10 may change these ranges as new Plandata is stored in database 90. Thus, some ranges may become smaller orlarger to distribute the universe of plans in database 90 intomeaningful ranges for comparison purposes. During the report generationphase, the software of system 10 may analyze Plan data 25 for the givenPlan and determines, given the universe of plans in database 90 at thetime, what the respective ranges for each of the sort factors should beas well as which and how many sort factors will be used to filterdatabase 90 to arrive at the Benchmark Group of Plans. In anotherembodiment, the ranges applied to the sort factors is fixed regardlessof the make up of and quantity of the universe of plans in database 90.In yet another embodiment, which and how many sort factors that system10 uses to filter database 90 is fixed regardless of the make up of andquantity of the universe of plans in database 90. In still anotherembodiment, the ranges applied to the sort factors and the number ofsort factors used to filter database 90 are selectable by User 16. Inthis way, User 16 may control, to some extent, not only thedetermination of the Benchmark Group of Plans but the resultingcomparison output reflected in the one or more Reports 118 that User 16chooses to receive.

Once a Benchmark Group of Plans is determined by system 10, system 10may then examine a number of measures that may indicate how well PlanParticipants are preparing for retirement according to their retirementgoals. Such “Participant Success Measures” may include, for example, thePlan's current participation rate, the average deferral percentage fornon-highly compensated employees, the average deferral percentage forhighly compensated employees, the percentage of participants maximizingthe available company match, the percentage of Plan assets inautomatically diversified options, the percent of eligible participantsmaking catch up contributions, the percentage of participants using anauto rebalance option or investment selections, the percentage ofterminated participants that have not cashed out their assets in thePlan, the percentage of participants with a personal retirement goal,and the percentage of participants on track to achieve their personalgoal.

The companies and entities that provide retirement plan services maywidely vary. In addition, the companies and entities that provideretirement plan services may provide such services on an a la cartebasis as well as by bundling a number of services together, often withvarying fee structures and approaches for charging and collecting feesor compensation for the services rendered. Thus, a process for comparinga given Plan against a database of Plans may involve identifying andconsidering the numerous, often disparate approaches to how fees arecharged to a Plan, and unifying the fee types into an apples-to-applesstructure for comparison.

To do this, one step in comparing a given Plan to a Benchmark Group ofPlans is to identify all fees and the sources for all fees that arebeing paid by the Plan in question. Plan level fees may be paid to anumber of Service Providers including, for example, to Recordkeepers,Advisor/Consultants, investment managers, and to a number of otherproviders of services to the Plan. Fees charged to a Plan at the ServiceProvider level may come from a variety of sources, such as investmentfees, commissions, finders' fees, managed account fees, and a variety ofother potentially hidden (i.e., imbedded) fees. Fees at the investmentlevel include the fees paid directly through investments in the Plan,and are often charged as a percentage of Plan assets. Fees at theParticipant level include for Participant-elected services like loans,distributions and self-directed brokerage transactions. Since some feesare paid by the Plan and others are paid by the Plan Sponsor, includingall fees related to the Plan regardless of who pays the fee is one wayto ensure accurate Plan comparisons.

Depending on the selected report 118, system 10 may then determine aPlan's design features and associated complexity and compare these tothe Benchmark Group of Plans. Plan design features may relate to Planeligibility, employee and employer contributions, invests structure anddistributions. System 10 may assign a “cost factor” to each Plan, whichmay be totaled and compared to the cost factors of plans in theBenchmark Group of Plans. Although Plan design complexity may be neithergood nor bad, what may be important to know is whether the costsassociated with a complex Plan are in line with, or better than, thecost to administer similarly complex Plans.

System 10 may also identify the fiduciary oversight and best practicessupport a Plan is receiving. Categories that may be considered include,for example, Plan design and administration, communications,investments, fees, and, if applicable, company stock. Informationconsidering comparison of these categories to the Benchmark Group ofPlans may be summarized at both the Plan and Service Provider levels.

System 10 may also identify the additional services the Plan isreceiving from the Advisor/Consultant. Additional Advisor/Consultantservices may include, for example, fiduciary status of advisor,participant education and communication efforts (including numbers andtype of meetings such as whether in group sessions or one on one). Inaddition, the Advisor/Consultant services may include providing, forexample, newsletters for Participants on a quarterly basis or some otherinterval, providing a website with financial Planning tools forParticipant use, and whether or not the Advisor/Consultant accepts phonecalls directly from Participants to address Plan questions.

System 10 may also make available a multi-part “Assessment ofSatisfaction” survey that may solicit opinions on the PlanRecordkeeper's Services Team, Participant's services and Sponsorservices.

System 10 may also examine the Plan and Participant services that arebeing provided to the Plan. Such services may include, for example,Plan-driven services, Participant-driven administration services andParticipant-driven communication services. System 10 may also assign a“difficulty factor” to each service. To compare services of a given Planagainst the Benchmark Group of Plans, system 10 may multiply the numberof transactions for each service (“called volumes”) by the degree ofdifficulty (“difficulty factor”) assigned to each service. The system 10may sum these amounts and the Plan's total may then be compared to thetotal of other Plans in the Benchmark Group.

System 10 may also consider various service standards of the Plan'sRecordkeeper, such as timeliness and accuracy of the services that areprovided. Accuracy standards may include various service categories suchas, for example, contributions, distribution processing, compliance, andcommunications. Examples of contributions may include processing ofpayroll tapes, employer match calculations, profit sharing calculations,and required contribution calculations. Examples of distributionprocessing may include new loans, in-service withdrawals, hardshipwithdrawals, termination distributions, QDRO's, and MRD's. Examples ofcompliance may include ADP/ACP testing, 415 testing, and signature ready5500. Examples of communications many include, for example, newsletters,custom communication campaigns, quarterly statements, and annualstatements.

As for timeliness standards, system 10 may consider bothParticipant-driven and Plan-driven standards. Examples ofParticipant-driven standards may include eligibility information,investment information, loans, in-service withdrawals, hardshipwithdrawals, termination distributions, other processing such as forQDRO's and MRD's, and statements. Examples of Plan-driven categoriesthat system 10 may consider include contributions, investment changes,compliance, other communications, and Plan events.

System 10 may summarize all of the fees and services provided by thePlan's Recordkeeper and Advisor/Consultant, respectively, on a singlepage of a selected report 118 for easy review by User 16.

As shown in Table 1 below, system 10 may generate one of a number ofdifferent pre-styled reports 118 comparing a given Plan against aBenchmark Group of Plans, as selected by User 16. In one embodiment, oneor more reports 118 may be configured using “Data Categories” asindicated in Table 1. In another embodiment, reports 118 may beconfigured using any combination of the “Data Categories” shown inTable 1. In yet another embodiment, individual “Data Categories” may beselected by User 16 to create one or more customizable Reports 118. Instill another embodiment, additional or fewer “Data Categories” may beused or selected than those shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Benchmarks Benchmarks Report 1 Report 2 Benchmarks Fees, Sponsorand Report 3 Plan Design, Advisor Plan and and Participant ProvidedParticipant Data Category Success Measures Services Services ReportBasic Plan ● ● ● Information Participant Success ● Measures Plan DesignFeatures ● Plan Investment ● Choices-Type Plan Investment ● Choices-FeesOther Fees ● Sponsor Fiduciary ● Support Advisor Provided ● ServicesSatisfaction- ● Recordkeeper Services Plan-Driven Services ●Participant-Driven ● Administration Participant-Driven ● CommunicationsService Volumes ● Accuracy & ● Timeliness Standards

As described above, system 10 may provide User 16 with one of a numberof pre-styled reports, each relying on a unique set of Plan data. In oneembodiment, as shown in Table 1 above, system 10 may generate BenchmarkReport 1 entitled, “Fees, Plan Design and Participant Success Measures,”which may compare a given Plan against a Benchmark Group of Plans bycomparing, for example, “Basic Plan information,” Participant SuccessMeasures” information, “Plan Design Features” information, “PlanInvestment Choices—Type” information, “Plan Investment choices—Feesinformation,” and other fees. Another exemplary report 118 identified inTable 1 is Benchmarks Report 2, entitled “Sponsor and Advisor ProvidedServices,” which may compare a given Plan against a Benchmark Group ofPlans by comparing, for example, “Basic Plan Information,” “SponsorFiduciary Support,” “Advisor Provided Services,” and“Satisfaction—Recordkeeper Services.” Yet another exemplary report 118identified in Table 1 is Benchmarks Report 3 entitled, “Plan andParticipant Services Report,” which may compare a given Plan against aBenchmark Group of Plans by comparing, for example, “Basic Planinformation,” “Plan-Driven Services,” “Participant-DrivenAdministration,” “Participant-Driven Communications,” “Service Volumes,”and “Accuracy and Timeliness Standards.”

As shown in Tables 2-15 below, each of these “Data Categories” mayindividually comprise a number of subcategories or items of informationthat User 16 may enter into system 10 or that system 10 may acquire. Inone embodiment, “Basic Plan information” may include 18 different itemsof information relating to the Plan, as shown in Table 2 below. Tables2-15 are, in essence, a roadmap of the type and extent of data fed intosystem 10 about a given plan.

Basic Plan Information

TABLE 2 Basic Plan Information  1) Plan type  2) Recordkeeper  3) Plansize - dollars  4) # of Plan participants  5) Auto enrollment used?  6)Employer Match offered?  7) Max employer match?  8) Participantcontribution to reach max match?  9) Supported by Advisor/Consultant?10) Advisor/consultant Firm name (if applicable) 11) Supported by a TPA?12) TPA Firm Name (if applicable) 13) Date of most recent fees/servicesreview 14) Plan Sponsor Name 15) Plan Name (from Form 5500) 16) Plan'sthree digit ID number (from Form 5500) 17) Plan Sponsor Tax ID Number(from Form 5500) 18) Plan Sponsor principal business activity (from Form5500)

Participant Success Measures

TABLE 3 Participant Success Measures  1) Participation rate  2) Deferralrate for non-highly compensated employees  3) Deferral rate for highlycompensated employees  4) % of participants getting maximum match  5) %of eligible participants making catch-up contributions  6) % of Planassets invested in auto-diversified options  7) % of participants usingauto re-balancing of investments  8) % of terminated participants“cashing out”  9) % of participants with a personal retirement savingsgoal 10) % of participants on track to achieve savings goal

Plan Design Features

TABLE 4 Plan Design Provisions  1) Eligibility - Service Requirementapplies?  2) Eligibility - Age requirement applies?  3) Maximum pre-taxcontribution allowed?  4) Auto deferral increase offered?  5) Maximumdeferral rate reached through auto increase?  6) Catch-up contributionsallowed?  7) After-tax contributions allowed?  8) ROTH contributionsallowed?  9) Roll-ins″ allowed? 10) Vesting schedule applies to employermatch? 11) # of years to fully vest employer match? 12) Discretionaryprofit sharing contributions offered? 13) Vesting schedule applies todiscretionary contributions? 14) # of years to fully vest discretionarycontributions? 15) Employer required contributions made? 16) Vestingschedule applies to employer required contribution? 17) # of years tofully vest employer required contribution? 18) Maximum number of loansper participant? 19) Allows in-service withdrawals? 20) Allows hardshipwithdrawals? 21) Allows installment payments? 22) Offers an annuitydistribution option at retirement?

Plan Investment Choices—Type

TABLE 5 Plan Investment Choices - Type For each choice WITH a TickerSymbol - Provide the following:   1) Ticker symbol or CUSIP   2) Dollarvalue of Plan assets invested   3) Portion of total expense ratio toRecordkeeper (fee offset)   4) Portion of total expense ratio refundedto participants   5) Portion of total expense ratio to TPA (fee offset)  6) Portion of total expense ratio to Advisor (Fee offset) For eachchoice WITHOUT a Ticker Symbol - Provide the following:   1) Vehicletype   2) Asset class   3) Name of choice   4) Dollar value of Planassets invested   5) Total expense Ratio   6) Portion of total expenseratio to Recordkeeper (fee offset)   7) Portion of total expense ratiorefunded to participants   8) Portion of total expense ratio to TPA (feeoffset)   9) Portion of total expense ratio to Advisor (Fee offset)  10)Portion of the total expense ratio to Others Other information:   1) The“as of date” of data provided   2) Total Plan assets in participantloans   3) Identify Plan default choice or series from Plan choice list

Plan Investment Choices—Fees

TABLE 6 Plan Investment choices - Fees For each Plan choice - identifywhere the answer is yes: 1) Accepts new contributions 2) Proprietary tothe Recordkeeper 3) Passive index fund 4) Pays commissions toAdvisor/Consultant 5) Pays finder's fees to Advisor/Consultant 6)Contingent deferred sales charges apply 7) Wrap fees apply (same ordifferent by choice) 8) Sub-TA fees paid on a per account basis apply Ifapplicable - provide the following at the PLAN LEVEL 1) Total amount ofcommissions paid to Advisor/Consultant 2) Total amount of finder's feespaid to Advisor/Consultant 3) Wrap amount to Recordkeeper 4) Wrap amountto TPA 5) Wrap amount to Advisor/Consultant If applicable - provide thefollowing by the CHOICE LEVEL 1) Wrap amount to Recordkeeper 2) Wrapamount to TPA 3) Wrap Amount to Advisor/Consultant 4) Sub-TA $ peraccount 5) Who collects Sub-TA fee (Recordkeeper or TPA) 6) Where Sub-TAapplies - # of participants owning choice

Plan Investment Choices—Fees

TABLE 7 Additional Fees to Recordkeeper: 1) Annual retainer fee ($) 2)Total Other Fees ($) 3) Portion of fees Plan paid vs. sponsor paid ($)Additional Fees to TPA: 1) Annual retainer fee ($) 2) Total Other Fees($) 3) Portion of fees Plan paid vs. sponsor paid ($) Additional Fees toAdvisor/Consultant: 1) Annual retainer fee ($) 2) Plan service fees paidby the Recordkeeper (BPS) 3) Total Other Fees ($) 4) Portion of feesPlan paid vs. sponsor paid ($) Additional Fees Other ServiceProviders: 1) Annual retainer fee ($) 2) Total Other Fees ($) 3) Portionof fees Plan paid vs. sponsor paid ($) Participant Paid Fees: 1) Annualper participant charge ($) 2) Annual per participant advice charge ($)3) Loan origination fee - per occurrence ($) 4) Loan maintenance fee -annual ($) 5) Hardship approval fee - per occurrence ($) 6) QDROapproval fee - per occurrence ($) 7) QDRO processing fee - peroccurrence ($) 8) Periodic payment processing fee - per occurrence ($)9) Non-periodic payment processing fee - per occurrence ($) ManagedAccount Program: 1) Plan has a managed account program? 2) Total Plan $invested in program 3) Number of participants using program 4) AnnualPlan sponsor paid fee 5) Minimum annual managed account fee perparticipant 6) Fee for a $10,000 account in basis points 7) Fee for a$25,000 account in basis points 8) Fee for a $50,000 account in basispoints 9) Fee for a $100,000 account in basis points 10) Fee for a$250,000 account in basis points 11) Fee for a $500,000 account in basispoints 12) Provider of investment advice for managed accounts? 13) % offees credited to managed accounts provider 14) % of fees credited toRecordkeeper 15) Total $ fees paid for managed accounts by the PlanAnnual per participant charge ($) Self Directed Account Program 1) Planhas a self directed account (SDA) program? 2) Total Plan $ invested inSDA program 3) Annual Plan sponsor paid fee to offer SDA ($) 4) Annualfee per participant to use the SDA ($) 5) Fee for internet placedtransactions - stock or fund ($) 6) Fee for 800 # operator assistedtransactions - stock or fund ($) 7) % of the SDA fees credited to theSDA provider 8) % of the SDA fees credited to the Recordkeeper 9)Provider of the self directed account service 10) # of participants withSDA accounts ERISA Spending Account 1) Plan has an ERISA spendingaccount? 2) $ credited to account by Service Provider 3) How was ERISAaccount used in last 12 months? 4) What approach is used to deal withyearend remainders?

Sponsor Fiduciary Support

TABLE 8 Section 1 - Plan Design & Administration Support Provided Foreach item, indicate who provides service (Recordkeeper, Advisor/Consultant, TPA, or Other) and if the services is a “Hot Button” issuefor the Plan (yes/no)? 1) Alerts Plan decision makers of importantregulatory and rules changes 2) Assists in design of Plan's eligibilityprovision, including use of Auto Enrollment 3) Assists in design ofPlan's Employee Contribution structures, including Roth or use of AutoIncrease 4) Assists in design of Plan's Employer Contribution approach,including use of employer match 5) Assists in design of Plan's loan andwithdrawal policy 6) Aids in structuring Plan's distribution options,including possible use of installments and annuities 7) Helps monitorongoing performance of Recordkeeper 8) Carries out a recordkeepingsearch with appropriate recommendation to Plan sponsor 9) Assessesbenefits of outsourcing all retirement Plans to your RecordkeeperSection 2 - Communications Support Provided (yes/no) For each item,indicate who provides service (Recordkeeper, Advisor/ Consultant, TPA,or Other) and if the services is a “Hot Button” issue for the Plan(yes/no)? 1) Assists with setting and monitoring goals for Planparticipation rates 2) Assists with setting and monitoring goals forparticipant deferral percentages for Non-HCEs 3) Assists with settingand monitoring goals for number of participants obtaining maximumcompany match 4) Assists with setting and monitoring goals for number ofparticipants in Automatically Diversified Options 5) Assists withsetting and monitoring goals for number of participants using adviceprogram 6) Assists with setting and monitoring goals for participantdiversification 7) Assists with setting and monitoring goals for thenumber of participants not cashing out 8) Assists with setting andmonitoring goals for number of participants establishing a retirementgoal 9) Assists with setting and monitoring goals for number ofparticipants on track to attain a retirement goal Section 3 -Investments Support Provided (yes/no) For each item, indicate whoprovides service (Recordkeeper, Advisor/ Consultant, TPA, or Other) andif the services is a “Hot Button” issue for the Plan (yes/no)? 1) Helpsdevelop the investment policy statement 2) Aids in the examination ofwhether a Plan is 404(c) compliant 3) Helps Plan sponsor to determinethe number and type of investment funds to offer 4) Assists withselection of the default fund 5) Builds and manages risk-based or targetretirement date portfolios from core funds 6) Helps determine the properfund benchmarks and documenting any benchmark changes 7) Assists inconsideration to offer an advice program 8) Assists in consideration tooffer Managed Accounts 9) Assists in consideration to offerSelf-Directed Account 10) Assists in consideration to offer an annuityoption 11) Helps monitor the investment policy statement 12) Helpsmonitor ongoing performance of all investment choices 13) Carries outinvestment manager searches with appropriate recommendation to Plansponsor 14) Helps Plan sponsor examine “mapping/blackout” options whenreplacing an investment manager Sections 4 - Fees Support Provided(yes/no) For each item, indicate who provides service (Recordkeeper,Advisor/ Consultant, TPA, or Other) and if the services is a “HotButton” issue for the Plan (yes/no)? 1) Analyzes and makes specificrecommendation for how to contract with all Service Providers 2) HelpsPlan sponsor make sure all participants share equitably in the cost ofadministering the Plan 3) Helps Plan sponsor make sure all Plan feespaid to all parties are FULLY DISCLOSED 4) Helps Plan sponsor make sureall Plan fees paid to all parties are REASONABLE 5) Helps Plan sponsormake sure that only “qualified” expenses are being paid by the Plan 6)Helps Plan sponsor determine which expenses should be assessed againstthe ERISA spending account 7) Helps Plan sponsor determine what to dowith excess ERISA account credits 8) Provides participants with anannual fee disclosure statement Section 5 - Company Stock SupportProvided (if applicable) (yes/no) For each item, indicate who providesservice (Recordkeeper, Advisor/ Consultant, TPA, or Other) and if theservices is a “Hot Button” issue for the Plan (yes/no)? 1) Identifies asource or sources of independent research on your company stock 2)Evaluates the diversification rules in your Plan design 3) Assesses prosand cons of share versus unit accounting 4) Assesses amount of cash tohold in the company stock fund 5) Helps design the company stockdividend feature of your Plan 6) Helps participants address the NetUnrealized Appreciation issue upon termination 7) Designs a behavioralfinance program to encourage diversification

Advisor Provided Services

TABLE 9 Additional Advisor/Consultant services provided (yes/no) 1) Actsas a Fiduciary under 1940 Act 2) Acts as a Fiduciary under ERISA 3)Provides Financial Planning Services 4) Provides Group Meetings 5)Number of Group Meetings (fill in) 6) Provides One-on-One Meetings 7)Number of One-on-One Meetings (fill in)

Satisfaction—Recordkeeper Services

TABLE 10 Level of Satisfaction - Recordkeeper Service Team 1) Rate theservice team's overall expertise and knowledge level (Responses: A TrueExpert, Adds Value, Satisfactory, Needs Improvement) 2) Rate the serviceteam's overall approach (Responses: An Advocate, Proactive,Satisfactory, Needs Improvement) 3) Has turnover in the service teamnegatively impacted service quality? (Responses: Not at all, A little, Alot, Not applicable) 4) Does the frequency with which the service teamis onsite meet the Plan's needs?(Responses: Yes, Almost, No, Notapplicable) 5) What is the overall assessment of the service team?(Responses: Insightful and Adds Value, Adds Value, Satisfactory, NeedsImprovement, Not applicable) 6) Does the service team's work productmeet the Plan's needs? (Responses: World Class, Very Good, Satisfactory,Needs Improvement, Not applicable) Level of Satisfaction - ParticipantServices - part A Internet Services 1) Availability 2) Speed 3) Easy tofind what you want 4) Range of available information 5) Quality ofinformation available 6) Ease of conducting a transaction 7) Ease ofusing the advice program 8) Range of educational materials 9) Quality ofeducational materials 10) OVERALL SATISFACTION - Internet Services 800Number Phone Services 1) Hours of availability 2) Answers call in anacceptable amount of time 3) Ease of use of automated phone system 4)Range of services of automated phone system 5) Ease of accessing acustomer service representative 6) Phone rep's knowledge of yourretirement Plan 7) Able to resolve an issue on the first call 8)Processes transactions accurately 9) Treats our participants as valuedcustomers 10) OVERALL SATISFACTION - Phone Services Level ofSatisfaction - Participant Services - part B Participant Print Materials(content, clarity, accuracy, timeliness) 1) Participant statements 2)Enrollment Kits 3) Newsletters and other education materials 4) Loanpaperwork 5) Withdrawal paperwork 6) Distribution paperwork 7)Confirmations 8) OVERALL SATISFACTION - Print Materials In PersonServices 1) Availability of group workshops 2) Accuracy of content ofgroup workshops 3) Range and clarity of content for group workshops 4)Willingness to answer questions in group workshops 5) OVERALLSATISFACTION - Group Workshops 6) Availability of one-on-one meetings 7)Accuracy of content of one-on-one meetings 8) Range and clarity ofcontent for one-on-one meetings 9) Willingness to answer questions forone-on-one meetings 10) OVERALL SATISFACTION - one-on-one meetings Levelof Satisfaction - Plan Services - Part A Plan Sponsor Portal 1)Availability 2) Speed 3) Ease of use 4) Range of information 5) Qualityof information 6) Range of available reports 7) Ad hoc reporting tool 8)Range of educational materials 9) Clarity of educational materials 10)OVERALL SATISFACTION - Sponsor Portal Plan Sponsor Reporting 1) Accuracy2) Timeliness 3) Quantity 4) Clarity 5) OVERALL SATISFACTION - SponsorReports Level of Satisfaction - Plan Services - Part B AdministrativeTransactions (flexibility, accuracy, timeliness, responsiveness) 1)Enrolling employees in the Plan 2) Processing employee contributions 3)Processing employer contributions 4) Processing loans, withdrawals,distributions, etc. 5) Producing participant statements 6) Producingcompliance testing 7) Producing year-end 5500 and audit package 8)OVERALL SATISFACTION - Plan Administration Plan Sponsor Education(Services such as webinars, newsletters, and legislative updates) 1)Accuracy 2) Timeliness 3) Quantity 4) Clarity 5) OVERALL SATISFACTION -Educational Services

Plan-Driven Services

TABLE 11 Plan-Driven Services - For each service indicate the following:Service Provided (Yes/No)? Who provides service (Recordkeeper, TPA, orOther Service Provider)? 1) Processes Fund Additions/Deletions 2)Conducts ADP/ACP Tests 3) Makes Plan Design Changes 4) ProcessesMergers/Acquisition/Divestitures 5) Provides Plan Sponsor Reports 6)Offers Company Stock Trustee Services 7) Offers Company Stock CustodyServices 8) Calculates Company Stock NAVs 9) Calculates CompanyPerformance 10) Calculates Company Stock Proxy Labels 11) ProcessesPayroll Files 12) Conducts 415 Test 13) Offers Online Access for PlanSponsor to Trust System 14) Provides Video 15) Provides Trustee Services16) Provides Custodial Services 17) Processes Signature-Ready 5500 18)Conducts Annual Audit 19) Provides Plan Document 20) Makes PlanAmendments 21) Sends Determination Letters 22) Provides Summary PlanDescription 23) Calculates Employer Profit-Sharing Contribution 24)Calculates Employer Matching Contribution 25) Manages Start Up orConversion 26) Conducts Top-Heavy Testing 27) Conducts 410(b) Testing28) Conducts 401(a)4 Testing 29) Provides NAV Calculation Services

Participant-Driven Administration

TABLE 12 Participant-Driven Administration - For each service, indicatethe following: Service Provided (Yes/No)? Who provides service(Recordkeeper, TPA, or Other Service Provider)? 1) Originates Loans 2)Provides Participant Recordkeeping - Actives 3) Provides LoanMaintenance (payments, payoffs, defaults) 4) Provides ParticipantRecordkeeping - Terminateds 5) Monitors 402(g) Limit on Contributions 6)Monitors 414(s) Limit on Compensation 7) Processes QDROs 8) ProcessesDistributions 9) Processes In-Service Withdrawals 10) Approves HardshipWithdrawals 11) Processes 401(a)(9) Minimum Distributions 12) ProcessesHardship Withdrawals 13) Processes Rollovers 14) Processes InvestmentTransfers 15) Approves QDROs 16) Mails Enrollment Kit 18) MaintainsBeneficiary Files

Participant-Driven Communications

TABLE 13 Participant-Driven Communications - For each service, indicatethe following (where applicable): Service Provided (Yes/No)? Whoprovides service (Recordkeeper, TPA, or Other Service Provider)? Is theservice paperless? Is the service customized? (Standard = Designed forgeneral use, Branded = includes Plan sponsor branding/logo, andCustomized = completely customized for the Plan Sponsor) 1) DeliversQuarterly Statements - Paper Based 2) Delivers Quarterly Statements -Electronic 3) Delivers Investment Advice 4) Creates Paper-Based MessageCampaigns 5) Provides Internet Services 6) Provides 800-Number Services7) Delivers Newsletter 8) Produces Enrollment Kits 9) Creates ElectronicMessage Campaigns 10) Provides Personal Access Codes 11) SendsProspectuses 12) Delivers On-Demand Statements 13) ProvidesSelf-Directed Account Materials 14) Holds Enrollment Meeting/GroupMeetings 15) Holds One-on-One Meetings 16) Provides Investment TransferConfirmations 17) Produces Annual Benefit Statements 18) Produces QuickEnrollment Card

Service Volumes

TABLE 14 Service Volumes - Plan-Driven Services Provide the requestednumber of each item. For activity based items, provide the totals forthe 12 months ending the “as of” date of this submission. PlanProcessing 1) Number of participants processed due to startup Plans orPlan conversions 2) Number of participants added or subtracted due tomerger/ acquisition/divestiture activity 3) Number of payroll filesprocessed 4) Number of fund changes processed 5) Number of Plan designchanges processed Calculations Performed 6) Number of employer matchingContribution calculations performed 7) Number of employer profit sharingcontribution calculations performed 8) Number of employer othercontribution calculations performed Compliance 9) Number of ADP/ACPTests 10) Number of 415 Tests 11) Number of Top-Heavy Tests Conducted12) Number of 410(b) Tests Conducted 13) Number of 401(a)4 TestsConducted Other 14) Number of Plan Sponsor Reports Provided ServiceVolumes - Participant-Driven Services Provide the requested number ofeach item. For activity based items, provide the totals for the 12months ending the “as of” date of this submission. AdministrationParticipant Counts 1) Number of active Plan participants with an accountbalance 2) Number of new Plan participants ADDED to Plan during period3) Number of terminated Plan participants with an account balance 4)Number of Plan participants TERMINATED during period 5) Number of newlyeligible employees processed Distributions Approval and Processing 6)Number of new loans processed 7) Number of outstanding loans maintained8) Number of in service withdrawals processed 9) Number of hardshipapprovals processed 10) Number of hardship withdrawals processed 11)Number of Other Distributions processed 12) Number of QDRO approvalsprocessed 13) Number of QDROs processed 14) Number of Minimum RequiredDistributions processed Other Processing 15) Number of investmenttransfers processed 16) Number of rollovers into the Plan processed 17)Number of beneficiary files maintained 18) Number of enrollment kitsmailed Communications Statements 1) Number of Paper Statements Sent toEach Participant 2) Number of Electronic Statements Sent to EachParticipant 3) Number of on demand statements accessed Web and VRU Use4) Number of participant website sessions 5) Number of participant phonecalls taken 6) Number of Newsletters Provided Print Materials & Video 7)Number of prospectuses sent 8) Number of Self Directed Account materialspackages sent 9) Number of quick enroll cards sent 10) Number of VideosProvided Face to Face 11) Number of Enrollment/Group meetings 12) Numberof One-on-One Meetings Campaigns 13) Number of Paper-Based MessageCampaigns Provided 14) Number of Electronic Message Campaigns Provided

Accuracy and Timeliness Standards

TABLE 15 Accuracy and Timeliness Standards Accuracy Standards (fill inpercent) Contributions  1) Payroll Tapes accuracy  2) Employer MatchCalculations accuracy  3) Profit Sharing Calculations accuracy  4)Required Contribution Calculations accuracy Distribution Processing  5)Loan accuracy  6) In-Service Withdrawals accuracy  7) HardshipWithdrawals accuracy  8) Termination Paperwork accuracy  9) QDROsaccuracy 10) MRDs accuracy Compliance 11) ADP/ACP testing accuracy 12)415 testing accuracy 13) 5500 accuracy Communications 14) Newsletteraccuracy 15) Paper Based Campaigns accuracy 16) Quarterly Statementaccuracy 17) Annual Statements accuracy Timeliness Standards -Participant-Driven Services (fill in # of days unless otherwise noted)Eligibility Information  1) Quick Enrollment Card Sent  2) EnrollmentKits Sent  3) Personal Access Codes Sent Investment Information  4)Prospectuses Sent  5) Self Directed Account Materials Sent  6)Newsletter Sent  7) Investment Transfer Confirmations Sent Loans  8) NewLoan Paperwork Processed  9) Loan Coupon Books Sent 10) Loan DefaultLetters Sent 11) Loan Payoff Letters Sent 12) Loan Check Sent In-ServiceWithdrawals 13) In-Service Withdrawal Paperwork Processed 14) In-ServiceWithdrawals Check Processed Hardship Withdrawals 15) Hardship WithdrawalPaperwork Processed 16) Hardship Withdrawals Check Sent TerminationDistributions 17) Termination Paperwork Processed 18) Terminations CheckSent Other Processing 19) QDROs Processed 20) MRDs Processed Statements21) On Demand Statements Availability Post Quarter End 22) QuarterlyStatements Sent 23) Annual Statements Sent 800-Number Service Standards(hours or # of seconds) 24) 800-Number Hours Per Week Available 25) 800Number average speed to Rep in seconds Timeliness Standards - PlanDriven Services (fill in # of days) Contributions  1) Processing ofPayroll Tapes  2) Employer Match Calculations  3) Profit SharingCalculations  4) Required Contribution Calculations Investment Changes 5) Adding/Changing a Fund Compliance  6) ADP/ACP Testing  7) 415Testing  8) Top-Heavy Testing  9) 410(b) Testing 10) 401(a)4 Testing 11)Proxy Voting on Mutual Funds 12) Signature-ready 5500 OtherCommunications 13) Electronic Messaging Campaigns Developed 14)Paper-Based Messaging Campaigns Developed 15) Group Meetings Plan Events16) Merger/Acquisitions/Divestiture Processing

Once all of the relevant information is entered into database 90 about agiven Plan, system 10 may then process a request for a given report 118,as selected by User 16. For example, if User 16 selects Report 1 fromwithin web portal 20, system 10 then may generate Report 1 for any givenPlan that User 16 is associated with.

One exemplary report 118 is shown in FIGS. 4 a through 4 z, which isentitled “Fees, Plan Design and Participant Success Measures.” Thisreport includes a Table of Contents, such as shown in FIG. 4 b, ananalysis of how the Benchmark Group was determined in comparison to thegiven Plan, as shown in FIG. 4 c, as well as a number of individualreports and/or report summaries relating to Plan fees, Plan design, and“Participant Success Measures,” as shown in FIGS. 4 e-4 x. In FIG. 4 y,there is shown an exemplary glossary page to assist User 16 inunderstanding certain terms used throughout the report. In FIG. 4 z,there is shown an exemplary disclosure page providing, for example,various disclaimers and information concerning report 118. As discussedbelow, FIG. 4 z may be customized in its content. If desired, thedisclosure page shown in FIG. 4 z may also be excluded from report 118.

In the exemplary report shown in FIG. 4 c, there is illustrated varioussort factors that system 10 considered when determining the BenchmarkGroup of Plans corresponding to the given Plan from which all subsequentcomparisons are made and illustrated throughout the report. As shown inColumn (1) of Table 1 of FIG. 4 c, system 10 considered nine sortfactors as being most relevant to arrive at the Benchmark Group of 576similar Plans filtered from a database of hundreds of thousands ofPlans.

As illustrated in Column (2) of Table 1 on FIG. 4 c, the Plan beingcompared to the Benchmark Group of Plans is identified as having $54.86million in Plan assets, 1,085 Plan Participants, was last reviewed in2006, has “manufacturing” as the industry of the Plan's Sponsor, is a401(k) Plan, uses automatic enrollment into the Plan for new hires, hasa 3% maximum employer matching contribution, has 9% of Plan assets inindex investment funds, and has 15% of Plan assets in managed accounts.

As shown in Column (3) of Table 1 of FIG. 4 c, system 10 determined theBenchmark Group of Plans to be all Plans from database 90 that had Planassets of between $50 million and $100 million and between 1,000 and1,500 participants, were each reviewed within the last three (3) years,100% of the Benchmark Group of Plans are in manufacturing, 100% of theBenchmark Group of Plans are 401(k) Plans, 100% of the Benchmark Groupof Plans use auto enrollment for new hires, each of the Benchmark Groupof Plans have as the maximum matching contribution somewhere between 2%to 3%, the Benchmark Group of Plans all have between 1% to 10% of theirPlan assets in index funds, and each of the Benchmark Group of Planshave between 10% to 20% of Plan assets in managed accounts.

Table 2 of FIG. 4 c illustrates what percent of the Benchmark Group usea particular Service Provider type, as well as the given Plan's specificService Providers by provider type. For example, as shown in Column (2)of Table 2, 100% of the Benchmark Group of Plans uses a Recordkeeper asa Service Provider, 51% use an Advisor/Consultant, 28% use a Third PartyAdministrator, and 27% of the Benchmark Group of Plans employs otherService Providers.

FIG. d illustrates another embodiment of the report page shown in FIG. 4c. For example, FIG. 4 d shows a different set of sort factors thatsystem 10 considered when determining the Benchmark Group of Planscorresponding to the given Plan from which all subsequent comparisonsmay be made and illustrated throughout the report. As shown in Column(1) of Table 1 of FIG. 4 d, system 10 considered nine sort factors asbeing most relevant to arrive at the Benchmark Group of 41 similarPlans, as illustrated in this example, that were filtered from adatabase of hundreds of thousands of Plans. Column (1) of FIG. 4 dfurther shows that the Sort Factors for this embodiment includes aYes/No answer (Table 1 Column (2)) to the question of whether theBenchmark Group of Plans include employer match, as opposed to theembodiment shown in FIG. 4 c which attempts to quantify a MaximumEmployer Matching Contribution. In this embodiment, 80% of the BenchmarkGroup of Plans has an Employer Matching component to the Plan (Table1-Column (3)).

FIG. 4 e illustrates an exemplary “Plan Fees Summary” page of Report 1,which provides an overall summary of the Plan's fees as compared to thefees charged to the Benchmark Group of Plans. Column (2) of Table 1 ofFIG. 4 e illustrates the fees charged to a given Plan by source of thosefees. In the exemplary embodiment of Table 1, investment fees totaled$268,493, which represents 72% of the total fee outlay for the Plan asshown at the bottom of Column (3). Table 1, Column (4) refers User 16 toa detail page “A-2” of Report 1 for a breakdown of all of the Plan'sinvestment fees. In this embodiment, detail page “A-2” is shown in FIG.4 l of Report 1.

FIG. 4 l, for example, shows a number of core investment funds as shownin Row (1), a number of automatically diversified funds as shown in Row(2) of Table 1, and a pair of other types of funds of the Plan, shown inRow (3) of Table 1.

Column (2) of Table 1 of FIG. 4 l illustrates the percentage of theBenchmark Group of Plans that held the corresponding category of assetas shown in Column (1) of Table 1. For example, in Row (a), Column (2)of Table 1, 89% of the Benchmark Group of Plans held a “stable value”asset category of funds.

Column (3) of Table 1 of FIG. 4 l illustrates the total expense, bypercent and by Service Provider, charged to the Plan for each categoryof investment. Column (4) of Table 1 of FIG. 4 l shows the combinedService Provider fee per investment category.

Adjacent to Column (4) in Table 1 is Column (5), which shows apercentage breakdown of the total expense charged to the Benchmark Groupof Plans for each of the category of investments. System 10, forexample, resolves the Benchmark Group of Plan's total expense by percentper fund category, where the Benchmark Group of Plans are ranked ingroupings or “bins” labeled “Low,” “Below Average,” “Average,” “AboveAverage,” and “High,” each representing the 5^(th) percentile, 25^(th)percentile, 50^(th) percentile—median, 75^(th) percentile, and 95^(th)percentile, respectively, of the Benchmark Group of Plans, as also shownin, for example, Table 1 of FIG. 4 b. Consequently, the use of the term“Average,” whether alone or with any other term, is a descriptive userather than a mathematical use of the term.

In Column (6) of Table 1 of FIG. 4 l, system 10 computes the differencebetween the total investment fees of Column (4) and the average feescharged to the Benchmark Group per investment category. As shown inColumn (6), Row (a) of Table 1, the total investment fee of 0.30% (asshown in Column (4), Row (a)), is 0.08% more expensive than the averageBenchmark Group fees of 0.22%. Consequently, by examining Column (6),User 16 may quickly determine how many investments in the Plan exceedthe median of the Benchmark Group of Plans and by how much.

FIG. 4 m illustrates another embodiment of the report page shown in FIG.4 l. For example, Table 1 of FIG. 4 m includes Column (1), whichindicates the total credit, by percent, credited to the Plan'sparticipants for each category of investment. In addition, Table 1 ofFIG. 4 m includes Column (2), which indicates the total expense, bypercent, charged to the Plan as a credit to the government for eachcategory of investment.

Returning to FIG. 4 e, there is shown in Table 2 an exemplarydistribution of total investment fees in dollars and in percent, byService Provider. As shown in Column (4) of Table 2 of FIG. 4 e, User 16is referred to various pages in the appendix of Report 1 to review thebreakdown of the fees for each Service Provider. For example, to obtainthe breakdown of the total investment fees for Recordkeepers of the Planas compared to the Benchmark Group of Plans, Table 2 refers User 16 todetail page “A-3,” which is illustrated in Report 1 as FIG. 4 n.

Referring to Table 1 of FIG. 4 n, there is illustrated various types ofRecordkeeper fees, by percent, by type of fee per investment fund, asshown in Column (1). Column (2) of Table 1 is the calculated totalinvestment fee for the Recordkeeper per fund.

Column (3) of Table 1 represents the distribution, using the same “bins”identified in FIG. 4 l, of Recordkeeper fees, by percent, of theBenchmark Group of Plans. Column (4) represents the difference inpercent from the respective values in Column (2), representing the totalfees for Recordkeepers per investment fund, relative to the averageRecordkeeper fees of the Benchmark Group of Plans. Column (5) of Table 1shows the percentage of Plans in the Benchmark Group of Plans that payfees to the Recordkeeper. By illustrating the data as shown in Table 1,User 16 or other fiduciary to the Plan may quickly determine what needsto be changed or improved about the Plan.

FIG. 4 o illustrates another embodiment of the report page shown in FIG.4 n. For example, Table 1 of FIG. 4 o includes other types ofRecordkeeper fees, by percent, by type of fee per investment fund, asshown in Column (1). For example, Table 1 shows credits paid to ERISA,credits paid to Participants, and payments made to Advisors, in percent,per investment fund.

Returning to FIG. 4 e, Table 3 shows a graphical representation of howthe total fees of the Plan compare to the Benchmark Group, in percent.For example, Table 3 shows that the total Plan fees of 0.64% is slightlybelow the average of the Benchmark Group, which is 0.67%. Table 3,therefore, shows how numerical data (via the numerical amount positionedover respective bars in the histogram) can be blended together with aneasily discernable qualitative ranking of the Plan (via the relativemagnitude of each graphical bar and the lateral position of the Plan onthe histogram) relative to the Benchmark Group of Plans.

Table 4 of FIG. 4 e illustrates in words how the Plan fees compare tothe Benchmark Group of Plans. For example, Table 4 illustrates that thisparticular Plan's fees are 0.03% less per year than the average in theBenchmark Group, which is equal to about $16,458 less per year, which is$15 less per participant per year.

FIG. 4 f summarizes the fees paid to the Plan's primary ServiceProviders, such as Record keepers, Advisor/Consultants, and InvestmentManagers. As before, the summary tables for each Service Provider shownin FIG. 4 f refer User 16 to various detail pages in the appendix for afurther breakdown of these fees.

FIG. 4 g provides a high-level comparison of the investment expenses forthis Plan as compared to the Benchmark Group of Plans. While investmentexpenses may be the largest component of Plan costs, these costs shouldbe considered in conjunction with the performance of the investments inthe Plan. While not shown in FIG. 4 g, investment performance relativeto Plan costs may be another comparison that can be made. In any event,Table 1 of FIG. 4 g indicates that, in this exemplary case, nine fundsin the Plan are well below average in the Benchmark Group of Plans interms of the total expense ratio, two funds are below average, fourfunds are above average, and six funds are well above average. Thus, inthis example, roughly half of the funds in the Plan are average or belowin terms of total expense ratios, while the other half of the funds thatare offered in the Plan are above average in total expense ratios.

Table 2 of FIG. 4 g shows a graphical summary how this particular Plan'stotal investment expense compares to the Benchmark Group of Plans, whichin this case, are 0.02% less than average.

FIG. 4 h reflects the Plan's relative complexity, which may be anindicator of how the Plan's design compares to other Plan designs of theBenchmark Group's.

Table 1 of FIG. 4 h is arranged in a series of five columns and a numberof rows, where the rows reflect various Plan provisions, which may beassigned a maximum cost income factor. Column (2) indicates whether thisparticular Plan has the Plan provisions and type shown in Column (1).Column (3) represents the percentage of Plans in the Benchmark Group ofPlans with a “Yes” for the specific Plan provision. Column (4) indicatesthe maximum cost impact factor from 1 to 5 that system 10 assigns toeach respective Plan provision identified in Column (1). A maximum costimpact factor expresses how much difficulty a certain Plan provisionadds to a Plan's design. For example, a Plan with a higher number ofinvestment options compared to the industry norm may receive a maximumcost impact factor of 5, whereas a Plan with a relatively low number ofinvestment options may receive only 1 point, thereby indicating that thecost should be less to administer that particular Plan. Column (5) showsthis particular Plan's cost impact factor for each of the respectivePlan provisions identified in Column (1).

Tables 2 and 3 show a graphical summary and a written summary,respectively, of how the Plan compares in complexity to the BenchmarkGroup of Plans. Table 2 of FIG. 4 h, for example, in this exemplarycase, indicates that the Benchmark Group of Plans range from a low of 20points to a high of 50 points with an average of 35 points in terms ofthe Plan complexity. In addition, Table 2 shows that the Plan beingcompared to the Benchmark Group of Plans had 43 points, which is abovethe Benchmark Group average.

FIG. 4 i reflects 10 recognized industry statistics for various“Participant Success Measures,” as shown in Table 1. In Column (2) ofTable 1 of FIG. 4 i, system 10 determined the percentage of Plans in theBenchmark Group of Plans that have each of the respective “ParticipantSuccess Measures” shown in Column (1). For example, in Column (2) Row(a), 100 percent of the Benchmark Group of Plans reports that theymeasure the plan's current participation rate against the available poolof plan participants. Column (3) of Table 1 shows how this particularPlan compares to the Benchmark Group of Plans with respect to each ofthe “Participant Success Measures” identified in Column (1). Forexample, Column (3) Row (a) indicates that this particular Plan has an81 percent participation rate, which is 21 percent higher than theaverage participation rate of 60%, as shown in Column (4) Row (a) andColumn (5) Row (a).

Table 2 of FIG. 4 i shows what percentage of Plans in the BenchmarkGroup of Plans have particular numbers of “Participant SuccessMeasures.” For example, in Column (1) of Table 2 of FIG. 4 i, 4 percentof the Benchmark Group of Plans reported “zero” as the number of“Participant Success Measures” that were average or better. Column (2)indicates that 33 percent of the Benchmark Group of Plans had at leastthree out of the ten “Participant Success Measures” that were average orbetter. By contrast, Column (3) shows that this particular Plan ranksaverage or better in five out of the ten categories of “ParticipantSuccess Measures” listed in Column (1), as indicated by the highlightedcell in Column (3).

Table 3 of FIG. 4 i summarizes the “Participant Success Measures” foreasy review by User 16. In this case, this particular Plan ranks averageor better in five out of ten categories. In addition, 77 percent of thePlans in the Benchmark Group rank lower than this particular Plan, and 9percent of Plans rank above this particular Plan.

FIG. 4 k is a summary of the investment offering of this particular Planand how it compares to the Benchmark Group of Plans. FIG. 4 k may behelpful to Plan Sponsors and their Advisors in comparing the scope oftheir investment offerings relative to other, comparable Plans. FIG. 4 kmay also provide additional details on investment program fees.

FIGS. 4 p, 4 r, and 4 t provide comparison detail information regardinginvestment fees paid to Advisor/Consultants, to Investment Managers, andto Others, respectively. The arrangement and content of the tables inFIGS. 4 p, 4 r, and 4 t are similar to that shown and discussed abovefor FIG. 4 n.

Referring to FIGS. 4 q and 4 s, there is illustrated another embodimentof the report pages shown in FIGS. 4 p and 4 r, respectively. Forexample, Table 1 of FIG. 4 q reduces the number of columns in thesection entitled, “Disclosure of Advisor/Consultant Fee in percent” tojust the total fee paid to the Advisor/Consultant, by percent, perinvestment fund (Column (1)). Similarly, Table 1 of FIG. 4 s reduces thenumber of columns in the section entitled, “Disclosure of InvestmentManager Fee in percent” to just the total fee paid to the InvestmentManager, by percent, per investment fund (Column (1)). In this way, User16 may more quickly ascertain the Advisor/Consultant Fee and theInvestment Manager Fee for the Plan, particularly if User 16 is lessinterested in knowing the individual components that make up these fees.

FIG. 4 u shows the percentage of Participants using Managed Accounts inthis Plan as compared to the Benchmark Group of Plans, as shown inTable 1. In addition, Table 1 shows the percentage of assets held inManaged Accounts in this Plan as well as how it compares to theBenchmark Group of Plans. The percentage of Participants using ManagedAccounts and the percentage of assets held in Managed Accounts for theBenchmark Group of Plans is shown in a distribution of qualitativelylabeled groupings or “bins.”

Table 2 of FIG. 4 u shows the fee disclosure and an indication ofreasonableness of those fees for the Plan's Managed Accounts relative tothe Benchmark Group of Plans. The total fees paid for managed accountsis shown in Column (1) Row (a), and in this exemplary case, thisparticular Plan has $49,374 paid for Managed Accounts. Fifty percent ofthe total fees paid for Managed Accounts are paid to the Recordkeeper ortheir affiliates, and the other fifty percent of these fees are paid tothe Managed Account Provider identified in Table 1. This compares to 51percent and 49 percent respectively for the Benchmark Group average, asshown in Column (2), Rows (b) and (c).

FIG. 4 v is arranged similarly to FIG. 4 u, and represents informationfor “Self Directed Accounts” relative to the Benchmark Group of Plans.

FIG. 4 w provides a detailed analysis of the Other fees being paid byParticipants, the Plan, or the Plan sponsor. For example, Table 1 ofFIG. 4 w shows various Participant Paid fees in Column (1), and thepercentage of Plans in the Benchmark Group that pay each of theserespective fees, as shown in Column (2). Column (3) shows this exemplaryPlan's unit cost for each of the Participant-paid fees in Column (1) ascompared to the Benchmark Group unit cost, as shown in each of thecolumns in item 4. Column (5) shows the difference between thisparticular Plan's unit cost and the Benchmark Group average unit costfor each of the Participant-paid fees identified in Column (1).

FIG. 4 x is a summary of various responses from the Benchmark Group ofPlans to basic ERISA “Spending Account” questions. For example, in Table1 of FIG. 4 x, 12 percent of the Benchmark Group of Plans reported thatthey do have an ERISA spending account. Table 2 shows the BenchmarkGroup's responses to a question of “What are the most common expensespaid from ERISA spending accounts?,” while Table 3 shows the BenchmarkGroup's response to the question of, “If a remainder exists at year end,how is it disbursed?”

In summary, Report 1 may include a number of individualized reports thateither summarize or provide detail to any number of aspects of a DefinedContribution Plan as well as how that Defined Contribution Plan comparesto a Benchmark Group of Plans that system 10 determines according tocriteria relating to a selected group of “sort factors.” In addition,the Benchmark Group may be represented by groupings or “bins” labeled“High,” “Above Average,” “Average,” “Below Average” and “Low,”representing the 95^(th) percentile, 75^(th) percentile, 50^(th)percentile—median, 25^(th) percentile, and 5^(th) percentile,respectively, of the Benchmark Group of Plans, as also shown in, forexample, Table 1 of FIG. 4 b. Consequently, the use of the term“Average” in any report, whether alone or with any other term, is adescriptive use rather than a mathematical use of the term. Variousreports may also present comparison data between a given Plan and aBenchmark Group of Plans using both or either qualitative measures andquantitative measures and which may further be summarized in a way thatenables User 16 to quickly and easily ascertain the Plans' relativeposition on any given measurement or aspect.

Taking FIG. 4 g as a representative example, Table 3 shows a detailed,numerical comparison of the total expense ratio of the Plan relative tothe Benchmark Group of Plans, and percent. Although a User 16 may wantto have at their disposal the various data represented in Columns (1)and (2), reflecting the Plan's total expense ratio and the difference ofthe Plan's total expense ratio relative to the average of the BenchmarkGroup, respectively, User 16 may instead want to merely refer to eitherTables 1 or 2 of FIG. 4 g, which summarize the story told in Table 3.Table 1, for example, visually represents how many of the particularfunds are well below average in expenses, below average in expense,above average in expenses or well above average in expenses to help User16 to form a quick opinion as to the position of the Plan relative tothe Benchmark Group of Plans.

Similarly, Table 2 graphically and numerically shows how the Plan'stotal investment expense compares to the Benchmark Group, where colorcoding and/or shading may help to show that the fees of the Plan are0.02 percent less than the average of the Benchmark Group of Plans. Inaddition, Table 2 shows how the Plan qualitatively compares to theBenchmark Group due to the Plan's relative placement on the histogram.Table 2 also shows the magnitude of the differences between the Plan andthe Benchmark Group of Plans, and how the 0.49 percent magnitude of thePlan compares to the Benchmark Group range of 0.40 percent to 0.61percent.

As indicated above, each of reports 118 numbers 1, 2, or 3 may bepreprogrammed and selected for delivery or viewing by User 16. Inaddition, each of the various “reports” or “charts” within reports 118may also be individually selected by User 16 via, for example, webportal 20. Consequently, User 16 may cause system 10 to build any report118 comprising any number of reports, summaries, charts, and the like,as may be selected or requested by User 16. Although not shown, an“Exception Report,” which can form a separate report 118 or be part ofone of the pre-programmed reports 1, 2 or 3 identified in Table 1 above,can also be generated by system 10 to summarize, for example, the topfive strengths of the Plan and the top five weaknesses of the Plan ascompared to the Benchmark Group of Plans. In this way, User 16 mayquickly identify which aspects of the Plan need no further attention aswell as those aspects that may need prompt attention to correctidentified deficiencies.

“Trending” is another area that may be useful to User 16. For example,while each of reports 118 numbers 1, 2, and 3 comprise snapshots of agiven Plan against a Benchmark Group of Plans, it may also be importantto show, for example, how the Plan's services measure over time. System10 may generate a “Trend Report,” which may compare any measurableaspect of a Plan to, for example, one or more prior years or priorreports, and which may project a trend going forward. In one embodiment,a “Trend Report” may comprise information regarding the participationrate of a Plan or for a Benchmark Group of Plans for the years 2007,2008, and 2009. The “Trend Report” may also include a projection as towhat may be expected for 2010. For example, if the Plan Participantparticipation rate for either the Plan or the Benchmark Group of Planswas 68% in 2007, 70% in 2008, and 72% in 2009, a “Trend Report” may beable to project that the participation rate will be 74% for 2010.

Turning now to FIG. 5 a-FIG. 5 q, there is shown another exemplaryreport 118 entitled, “Sponsor and Advisor Provided Services” comprising“Basic Plan Information,” “Sponsor Fiduciary Support,” “Advisor ProvidedServices,” and “Satisfaction—Recordkeeper Services.” These categoriesare shown in Table 1. The layout of the report shown in FIGS. 5 a-5 q issimilar to that shown in FIGS. 4 a-4 z, except as may be driven by thespecific Data Category that is being compared to the Benchmark Group ofPlans or the manner in which data is presented. In addition, colorcoding and/or shading, as described above, may be used in various waysto enable a single column of data, for example, to carry additionalmeaning.

Referring to FIG. 5 j, there is shown a summary of the “AdditionalAdvisor/Consultant Services” provided to the Plan as compared to theBenchmark Group of Plans. Among the tables shown in FIG. 5 j, there isalso shown Table 1, which can output “free form” data that theAdvisor/Consultant inputs into database 90. For example, if theAdvisor/Consultant provides additional services that are not otherwisecovered by any of the pre-prepared questions during input of Plan data25, then system 10 may be programmed to include “free form” fields inone or more web pages of web portal 20 to allow the Advisor/Consultantto enter information of their own choosing about additional servicesthat they provide to the Plan. The output of such “free form” fields maybe reflected in Table 1 of FIG. 5 j.

Referring to FIGS. 5 k-5 m, there is shown an exemplary summary of the“Advisor/Consultant Services” provided to the Plan as compared to theBenchmark Group of Plans. Column (1) of Table 1 on FIGS. 5 k-5 l, forexample, quickly identifies to User 16 the types of services that thePlan receives from the Advisor/Consultant. Column (2) of Table 1 ofFIGS. 5 k-5 l shows what percentage of the Benchmark Group of Plans alsoreceive the itemized list of services to enable User 16 to quicklycompare the services it receives against those of the Benchmark Group ofPlans. In addition, Column (3) of Table 1 of FIGS. 5 k-5 l shows acomparison of the fee, if paid, that the Advisor/Consultant receives forproviding the itemized list of services shown in Table 1. FIG. 5 m is anexemplary summary of additional services that an Advisor/Consultant mayprovide that are not otherwise identified on FIGS. 5 k-5 l.

Referring to FIG. 5 o, there is shown the qualitative results of thesatisfaction survey that the Plan Sponsor completed or that theAdvisor/Consultant completed on behalf of the Plan Sponsor. Inparticular, FIG. 5 o shows the relative satisfaction by the Plan Sponsorof the Recordkeeper service team. In one exemplary response to thequestion, “What is the overall assessment of the service team?,” thePlan Sponsor reported that the service team “added value” as shown inTable 1. In response to the question, “Does the service team's workproduct meet the Plan's needs?,” the Plan Sponsor responded that theservice team's product was “satisfactory,” as indicated in Table 2 ofFIG. 5 o. Although the tables in FIG. 5 o show a qualitative measure ofa Plan Sponsor's satisfaction with the Recordkeeper's service teamperformance, quantitative measures can also be used, such as through theuse of a quantitative rating system (e.g., rating each question on ascale of 1 to 5, or 1 to 10, for example). In an alternative embodiment,a blend of qualitative and quantitative measures is used. In anotherembodiment, only quantitative measures are used.

FIGS. 5 d-5 i show various “Fiduciary Oversight and Best PracticeSupport” reports. Every Plan has a named fiduciary whose job is to makesure the Plan complies with all laws. The exemplary reports illustratedin FIGS. 5 d-5 i may help raise awareness of issues to minimizefiduciary liability as well as improve the performance of the Plan.

Table 1 of FIG. 5 e, for example, shows whether the Plan's ServiceProviders provide the services identified in Column (1). Taking this onestep further, a Plan fiduciary may want to know how well a particularservice is actually being provided to the Plan. Thus, qualitative andquantitative measures may be employed to ascertain not only theexistence of a particular service to a Plan, but how well that serviceis being performed by the Service Provider as compared to the BenchmarkGroup of Plans.

Another exemplary report as shown is FIGS. 6 a-FIG. 6 j entitled, “Planand Participant Services.” This report, identified in Table 1 above, mayinclude comparisons of the Plan against the Benchmark Group of Planswith respect to “Plan-Driven Services,” “Participant-drivenAdministration,” and “Participant-driven Communications,” as shown onFIGS. 6 e-FIG. 6 g, respectively. Examples of “Plan-driven Services”include Plan design changes, mergers and acquisitions, and ADP/ACPtesting. Examples of “Participant-driven Administration Services”include loans, withdrawals, and QDRO's. Examples of “Participant-drivenCommunications” include quarterly statements and 800 number customersupport.

On FIG. 6 d, there are shown three summary tables for each of thesethree types of Plan services. Table 1 of FIG. 6 d shows how the Plan's“Plan-driven Services” compares to the Benchmark Group, which for thisparticular Plan, exceeds the benchmark average of 24,000 points by 3,457points. “Points” (or “score”) is determined by system 10 by multiplyingthe number of transactions for each service (called “volumes”) by thedegree of difficulty to complete that work (called “difficulty factor”).For example, if 26 payrolls are processed in a Plan year with eachpayroll having a complexity factor of 50, the service's “score” forpayroll processing would be 13,000 points. Or, if only 5 percent of PlanParticipants took a loan and each loan had a complexity factor of 75,the service's “score” for loans would be 3.75. Thus, adding theindividual scores for all services allows for a comparison of the amountof work being done for the Plan as compared to the Benchmark Group ofPlans.

FIG. 6 e is a detail breakdown of the “Plan-driven Services” that aresummarized in Table 1 of FIG. 6 d. Column (1) of Table 1 of FIG. 6 eshows a list of various “Plan-driven Services” to be compared. Column(2) of Table 1 is entitled “Scope of Service” and shows not only thepercentage of Plans in the Benchmark Group receiving each service, asidentified in Column (1), but also which of the Column (1) services thisparticular Plan has, as shown by the highlighted cells in Column (2).Thus, in this particular example, the Plan has 24 of the 29 “Plan drivenServices” that are listed in Column (1). Column (3) is entitled “ServiceVolumes” and represents this Plan's “service volume” as compared to theBenchmark Group average. Taking the cell at Column (3), Row (a), forexample, Table 1 shows that this Plan processes two fundadditions/deletions compared to the Benchmark Group average, whichprocesses only one fund addition/deletion.

Like Column (2), Column (4) also shows two pieces of information: whichof the “Plan-driven Services” shown in Column (1) that this Plan ServiceProvider (i.e., Recordkeeper) provides, and the percentage of theBenchmark Group of Plans that are supported by the provider. Column (5)reflects the same information as Column (4) except that all of the“Other Providers” are grouped together in a Column called “Other.” Ascan be seen from the shaded cells of Columns (4) and (5) of Table 1, thetotal number of cells must equal the total number of cells shaded inColumn (2). Column (6) identifies the name of the “Other” ServiceProvider adjacent the shaded cells in Column (5).

Column (7) shows the “difficulty factor” that system 10 assigned to eachof the Recordkeeper services listed in Column (1). Column (8) shows thePlan's “service volumes” taken from Column (3) for each of the servicesshown in Column (1) for the Recordkeeper. Column (9) totals theRecordkeeper “Plan-driven Service Score,” which is the result ofmultiplying the items in Column (7) the items in Column (8). At thebottom of Column (9) there is shown the sum total of the Column (9)scores for this Plan (at Row (b)). Just below this total, at Row (c),Column (9), is an identification of the “Low,” “Average,” and “High”“service scores” for the Benchmark Group of Plans, representing the5^(th) percentile, the 50^(th) percentile—median, and 95^(th) percentilerankings, respectively, of the Benchmark Group of Plans, for easycomparison of this Plan's score to the Benchmark Group. As before, theuse of the term “Average,” whether alone or with any other term, is adescriptive use rather than a mathematical use of the term.

A “Timeliness Standards” report is shown in FIG. 6 i. This page compares41 services of the Plan and reports how well the Plan performs on thesemeasures as compared to the Benchmark Group of Plans. For example, onemeasure of a Plan's timeliness may be how quickly the Plan executesrequests for on-demand Plan Statements. If the Plan executes suchrequests within one day, and the Benchmark Group of Plan executes suchrequests within 3 days, such information may be shown in the report ofFIG. 6 i, such as in Columns (1) and (2) of Row (a) of Table 1. Takingthis one step further, system 10 may compare actual Plan metrics againstwhat the Plan's Service Providers agreed to provide to help inform aPlan Sponsor, for example, as to whether the Plan actually receives eachof the Plan services within the timeliness guidelines as agreed to byeach of the Plan's Service Providers. Thus, if a Plan Participant issupposed to receive an On-Demand Plan Statement within one day of theirrequest, such a report would compare actual delivery statistics ofOn-Demand Plan Statements against the Plan's design to verify that thePlan is actually receiving the service(s) that it pays for.

As described above, User 16 may select one or more pre-styled reports118 or select one or more options for customizing a user-customizablereport 118. In this way, elements of one or more of Reports 1, 2, and 3may therefore be combined into a pre-styled report 118 oruser-selectable for creating a user-customizable report 118.

In one embodiment, a report template may be created for use ordistribution by, for example, a Broker/Dealer who may be associatedwith, for example, dozens of Advisor/Consultants, where each of theAdvisor/Consultants may receive the same basic report type(s) but wheresuch reports are tailored to the particular Advisor/Consultant to whomthe report(s) is directed. To create the template, the Broker/Dealer maydefine customizable aspects of the template to identify a particularAdvisor/Consultant to whom a particular report is directed as well as toidentify the Broker/Dealer, for example, from whom the report may bedistributed. Such customizable aspects may include, for example,customizable fields on the cover page of the report (e.g., FIG. 4 a) andthe disclosure page of the report (e.g., FIG. 4 z). The customizablefields may include, for example, fields 220, 230, as shown on FIG. 4 a.Field 220 may comprise, for example, the name or logo of theBroker/Dealer, while field 230 may comprise, for example, the name ofthe Advisor/Consultant associated with that Broker/Dealer. Similarly,FIG. 4 z comprising an exemplary disclosure page of a report shows field240, which may comprise the name of the Broker/Dealer. By associating,for example, each Advisor/Consultant corresponding to a Broker/Dealer,system 10 may automatically create personalized reports of the samereport type that are customized with one or more customized elementsdescribed above on one or more pages of the report as well as the reportdata summarized therein.

In addition, system 10 may dynamically include or exclude entiresections of a given report or, alternatively, various elements of agiven report (such as one or more columns or rows on a given sheet)depending on the components of the particular Plan. For example, if thePlan does not have a managed account, then system 10 may automaticallyexclude any pages or any data elements that pertain to managed accounts.

To access system 10 through web portal 20, a login/user ID and passwordmay be entered into User ID field 167 and password field 168, as shownin a representative login screen 166. Login screen 166 may be a web pageon a website operated by, for example, an operator or administrator ofdatabase 90 and system 10.

If User 16 does not have a login ID or password, system 10 may requirethat User 16 register to obtain access to system 10. To register, User16 may select button 169, as shown in FIG. 7, to cause a “UserRegistration” web page 171 to activate, as shown in FIG. 8. To completethe registration process, User 16 may enter all of the information asrequested in various fields on the page, including an email address anda password selected by User 16 to be used for future access to system10. User 16 may cancel the registration process by selecting the“cancel” button 172. Alternatively, if User 16 is satisfied with theentries on “User Registration” web page 171, User 16 may continue byselecting “Done” button 173.

Upon successful registration or logging into the system using apreviously registered login ID and password, system 10 then may displaya “Welcome” screen 175 to User 16, as shown in FIG. 9. As shown in FIG.9, “Welcome” screen 175 may include several icons, that when selected byUser 16, may activate preprogrammed functionality in system 10. As shownin FIG. 9, these icons may include an “Add Plan” icon 176, an “AddSponsor” icon 177, an “Edit Plan” icon 178, and a “Dashboard” icon 179.If User 16 selects “Add Plan” icon 176, system 10 then may activatesoftware comprising Plan bean 130 of middleware tier 120, and may causethe display of an “Add a Plan” screen 181 to User 16, as shown in FIG.10. The “Add a Plan” screen 181 may be used to enter any kind of DefinedContribution Plan data into database 90. As shown on FIG. 10, the “Add aPlan” screen 181 may include a number of drop-down boxes for selectingone out of a number of pre-programmed choices to ensure uniformity ofdata in database 90.

Data entered in this page may be stored temporarily in the memoryallocated to Plan bean 130. In addition, the software of Plan bean 130and middleware tier 120 may be programmed to auto-complete certainpredetermined fields as User 16 begins to type characters in thesefields. For example, the beginning three characters of a Plan Sponsor'sname may trigger Plan bean 130 to either populate the remaining fieldswith a Plan Sponsor's information or may present User 16 with choicesfor Plan Sponsor names that the three characters match 1—database 90. Todo this, software Plan bean 130 may activate a lookup table connected todatabase 90 to retrieve and populate multiple fields on the fly.

Additional assistance is provided to User 16 for many, if not all, ofthe data entry fields of system 10. For example, as shown in FIG. 10,icon 182, if selected, may activate software to call up and display a“Guide to Survey Questions and Data Elements,” which may be a valuableonline resource for User 16 to understand what each particular field isrequesting to be input. A representative “Guide” is shown in FIGS. 11a-11 j. The software of system 10 may further be configured to “jump” tothe precise location in the “guide” that relates to the particular fieldin question. For example, a user selecting help icon 182 may be shownthe appropriate “guide” page that relates to the “Add a Plan” screen181, and specifically, to “Sponsor Name” 182 shown in FIG. 11 a.Likewise, for example, a user selecting help icon 183 relating to thefield “Recordkeeper” on “Add a Plan” page 181 of FIG. 10 may be takendirectly to the information relating to “Recordkeeper” 183, as shown inFIG. 11 a.

To navigate between or among various screens of system 10, User 16 maybe presented with “Go Back” button 185, “Cancel” button 186, “AddAnother Sponsor” button 187, “Continue” button 188, and “Add more planswith this Sponsor” button 189, as shown in FIG. 10. In addition, variousscreens may include a “delete” button 184, as is shown in FIG. 10, toenable a Plan Sponsor or Recordkeeper, for example, to deleteinformation concerning a particular Plan from database 90.

If User 16 selects “Add more plans with this Sponsor” button 189,software of Plan bean 130 of system 10 may cause a clean “Add a Plan”screen 181 to display thereby allowing entry of data about another Planfor the same Plan Sponsor. Any data entered into screen 181 will bestored on database 90 upon selection of “Add more plans with thisSponsor” button 189.

If User 16 selects “Continue” button 188, software of Plan bean 130 ofsystem 10 may cause a “Dashboard” screen 190 to be displayed, as shownin FIGS. 12 a-12 b. “Dashboard” screen 190 may display a concise listingof all of the prior Plans previously entered, and Plans that are in theprocess of being entered, into database 90, as well as various optionsselected by User 16. For example, Column (1) shows a list of PlanSponsors that have been entered into database 90 or are currently beingentered or in the process of being entered. Column (2) shows a list ofPlan names, Column (3) shows a list of the assets in those Plans, Column(4) shows the name of the Recordkeeper for each respective Plan, Column(5) shows the type of report that the user has selected to receive, ifat all. Column (6) of FIGS. 12 a-12 b shows the type of method forentering data for each respective Plan (either, for example, “self” or“Recordkeeper/TPA”) as selected by User 16. Column (7) shows the currentstatus of entry of Plan data. Column (8) shows the next scheduled reportdate as may be currently scheduled in system 10.

As detailed above, User 16 may select one or more of reports 118 numbers1, 2, or 3, or all of them, or any portion thereof. If more than onePlan is shown on a particular “Dashboard” screen 190, as is illustratedin FIGS. 12-12 b, User 16 may select or deselect which Plans to“benchmark” (i.e., compare to the Benchmark Group of Plans that isuniquely tailored to each individual Plan). In one embodiment, system 10defaults to benchmarking all of the Plans shown in a given “Dashboard”screen 190, allowing User 16 to deselect those Plans that it does notwant to benchmark. In another embodiment, system 10 defaults tobenchmarking none of the Plans shown in a given “Dashboard” screen 190,allowing User 16 to select those Plans that it wants to benchmark.

To proceed with entering specific Plan data, User 16 may then selectbutton 191 to cause system 10 to show a “Choose Plan Data Entry Method”screen 194, as shown in FIG. 13. On this particular screen, User 16 maybe presented with two options 195, 196 where the selection of one or theother may cause system 10 to show different screens to User 16 forfurther data entry. For example, if User 16 selects option 195, system10 may then initiate the display of a screen that requests entry of theRecordkeeper/TPA that User 16 wants to send a request to, to have thementer the respective Plan data. On the other hand, if User 16 selectsoption 196, then system 10 may then cause “Dashboard” screen 190 toshow. At this point, User 16 may be shown a hyperlink called “Edit PlanData” under “Plan Data Status,” which when selected, causes the “EditPlan Data—Basic Information” screen 199 to display, as shown in FIG. 14a-14 b.

If User 16 elects to have the Recordkeeper/TPA enter data about a Planinto system 10, then system 10 sends an email to the identifiedRecordkeeper/TPA containing a hyperlink to system 10. When theRecordkeeper/TPA selects the hyperlink in the body of the email, system10 recognizes the connection as being a semi-authenticated user anddisplays a partially pre-populated version of “Welcome” screen 175 tothe Recordkeeper/TPA.

If User 16 is a Plan Sponsor, for example, and elects to self-enter Plandata, User 16 may be given the opportunity at the end of entering all ofthe Plan data to request that someone else review the data they entered.System 10 may then send an email, as described above, to the requestedperson to review the Plan data. In this way, a Recordkeeper/TPA, forexample, may have dual capability—to respond to a request from a PlanSponsor or to review data previously entered by someone else, such as aPlan Sponsor, and also to enter data if and when requested to do so.

As shown in FIG. 14 a, the “Edit Plan Data” screen 199 may have a numberof tabs shown near the top of the page, such as “Basic Information” 202,“Success Measures” 203, “Design” 204, “Investments” 205, “Fees” 206,“Managed Account” 207, and “Self Directed Account” 208. Selecting anyone of these tabs may cause system 10 to activate the respective dataentry screens that relate to the selected tab. In addition, the numberand type of tabs that are displayed on the “Edit Plan Data” screen 199may be dependant on the type of report that is selected in Column (5) ofFIG. 12 a. For example, if the “Fees, Plan Design, and ParticipantSuccess Measures” report is selected in the menu option of Column (5) inFIG. 12 a, system 10 may cause to be displayed each of the tabs 202-208as shown on 14 a. However, if User 16 selects any other report in Column(5) of FIG. 12 a, more or less tabs 202-208 may be shown on “Edit PlanData” screen 199 as are necessary to populate and generate the selectedreport. FIGS. 14 a-14 s reflect exemplary data input pages for inputtingPlan data into system 10.

Once User 16 enters all of the data as is requested on each of therespective screens represented by 202-208, system 10 may then cause allof the data to be permanently stored on database 90.

During entry of data in any of FIGS. 14 a-14 s, system 10 through itsmiddleware software may dynamically adjust subsequent data entry fieldsaccording to a user's response to a current data entry field. Bydynamically adjusting subsequent fields, User 16 may not be burdened byhaving to populate unnecessary fields that do not apply to a given Planbased on the user's entry of data in a current field. To accomplishthis, the middleware software of system 10 employs logic to toggle onand off subsequent fields based on responses to a current data entryfield.

Taking, for example, question 4 under “Basic Plan Information” on “editPlan data” screen 199 of FIG. 14 a, (i.e. “Does the Plan provideemployer matching contributions?”) User 16 selects option “No,” thenmiddleware software of system 10 may immediately toggle off the dataentry field under question 5, which is shown at the top of FIG. 14 b.Conversely, if User 16 selects option “Yes —% match,” then middlewaresoftware of system 10 may immediately toggle on the data entry fieldunderneath question 5, which is shown at the top of FIG. 14 b and whichasks, “If applicable, what is the maximum match the Plan provides as apercentage of employee pay?” Given the sheer volume of data the system10 may request to be entered about any given Plan, dynamically togglingon and off fields as needed may dramatically improve the speed at whichdata is entered and stored into system 10.

FIGS. 15 a-15 j, FIGS. 16 a-16 w, and FIGS. 17 a-17 z reflect exemplary“Data Elements” for report numbers 1-3, respectively (See Table 1above). Of course, depending on the structure and composition of thepre-programmed reports in system 10 the “Data Elements” shown in FIGS.15, 16 and 17 may vary from what is shown in these figures.

Although the foregoing describes a system and method for evaluatingDefined Contribution plans, it should be understood by one of ordinaryskill in the art that the teachings of the present disclosure can beapplied to evaluate Defined Benefit plans, and non-qualified retirementplans as well.

While specific embodiments of the invention have been described indetail, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that variousmodifications and alternatives to those details could be developed inlight of the overall teachings of the disclosure. Accordingly, theparticular invention disclosed is meant to be illustrative only and notlimiting as to the scope of the invention which is to be given the fullbreadth of the appended claims and any equivalents thereof.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method of evaluating a retirement plan,comprising the steps of: a. receiving data comprising fee data, costdata, and value data corresponding to a plurality of retirement plans;b. storing the data in memory on at least one web-accessible computer;c. determining from the fee data, via a processor associated with the atleast one web-accessible computer, a fee component associated with eachof the retirement plans and for each of a plurality of service providersassociated with the retirement plans, comprising the steps ofidentifying a plurality of fee sources and an amount of fees associatedwith each fee source for each of the service providers, and for each ofthe service providers, normalizing the amount of fees associated witheach fee source; d. determining from the cost data via the processor acost component associated with each of the retirement plans and for eachservice provider, comprising the steps of determining a plurality ofcomplexity metrics comprising a plan complexity score associated with aplurality of plan design features, determining a plurality of plan andparticipant services metrics comprising an overall services score toquantify an amount of work associated with a plurality of plan-drivenservices and/or a plurality of participant-driven services provided tothe retirement plans by each of the service providers, determining aplurality of accuracy metrics to quantify an accuracy of execution ofagreed upon services by each of the service providers associated withthe retirement plans, and determining a plurality of timeliness metricsto quantify a timeliness of execution of agreed upon services by each ofthe service providers associated with the retirement plans; e.determining from the value data via the processor a value componentassociated with each of the retirement plans and for each serviceprovider, comprising the steps of determining a plurality of participantsuccess metrics to quantify preparedness for retirement by participantsof the retirement plans, and determining a plurality of fiduciarysupport metrics to quantify an amount of fiduciary oversight and bestpractices support provided to the retirement plans by each of theservice providers; f. assembling, via the processor, a comparison groupfrom among the plurality of retirement plans; and g. providing, via theprocessor, a comparison of the fee component, the cost component, andthe value component associated with a selected retirement plan to thefee component, cost component, and the value component associated withthe comparison group.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the serviceprovider is a Recordkeeper.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein theservice provider is a Third Party Administrator.
 4. The method of claim1, wherein the service provider is an Advisor.
 5. The method of claim 1,wherein the service provider is an Investment Manager.
 6. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the fee sources associated with a plan-driven feecomponent include investment fees.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein thefee sources associated with a plan-driven fee component includecommissions.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the fee sourcesassociated with a plan-driven fee component include Finder's fees. 9.The method of claim 1, wherein the fee sources associated with aplan-driven fee component include Managed Account fees.
 10. The methodof claim 1, wherein the fee sources associated with a plan-driven feecomponent include Other fees.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the feesources associated with a plan-driven fee component include amountscredited to an ERISA spending account.
 12. The method of claim 1,wherein normalizing the amount of fees associated with each fee sourceincludes aggregating the amount of fees associated with a plan-drivenfee component, and dividing the aggregated amount of fees by a totalamount of assets associated with the selected retirement plan.
 13. Themethod of claim 1, wherein normalizing the amount of fees associatedwith each fee source includes identifying a unit cost per occurrence forfee sources associated with a participant-driven component.
 14. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the fee sources associated with aparticipant-driven fee component include annual per participant advicefees.
 15. The method of claim 1, wherein the fee sources associated witha participant-driven fee component include loan origination fees peroccurrence.
 16. The method of claim 1, wherein the fee sourcesassociated with a participant-driven fee component include annual loanmaintenance fees.
 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the fee sourcesassociated with a participant-driven fee component include hardshipapproval fee per occurrence.
 18. The method of claim 1, wherein the feesources associated with a participant-driven fee component include QDROapproval fees per occurrence.
 19. The method of claim 1, wherein the feesources associated with a participant-driven fee component include QDROprocessing fees per occurrence.
 20. The method of claim 1, wherein thefee sources associated with a participant-driven fee component includeperiodic payment processing fees per occurrence.
 21. The method of claim1, wherein the fee sources associated with a participant-driven feecomponent include non-periodic payment processing fees per occurrence.22. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the plurality ofcomplexity metrics comprises the steps of assigning a maximum costimpact factor to each of the plan design features, and for eachretirement plan by service provider, summing the maximum cost impactfactor associated with each of the plan design features.
 23. The methodof claim 1, wherein the plan design features include plan eligibilityfeatures.
 24. The method of claim 1, wherein the plan design featuresinclude employee contribution features.
 25. The method of claim 1,wherein the plan design features include employer contribution features.26. The method of claim 1, wherein the plan design features includeinvestment features for participants.
 27. The method of claim 1, whereinthe plan design features include plan distribution features toparticipants.
 28. The method of claim 1, wherein the overall servicescore is determined by identifying a frequency with which each of aplurality of services associated with the plan-driven services and/orthe participant-driven services is provided by each of the serviceproviders, assigning a difficulty factor to each of the services,multiplying the difficulty factor by the frequency for each of theidentified services to obtain a product, and summing the product foreach of the services.
 29. The method of claim 1, wherein the pluralityof participant success metrics includes a participant participationrate.
 30. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of participantsuccess metrics includes an average deferral percentage for non-highlycompensated employees.
 31. The method of claim 1, wherein the pluralityof participant success metrics includes an average deferral percentagefor highly compensated employees.
 32. The method of claim 1, wherein theplurality of participant success metrics includes a percent ofparticipants maximizing an employer matching feature.
 33. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the plurality of participant success metrics includes apercent of plan assets in automatically diversified options.
 34. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the plurality of participant success metricsincludes a percent of eligible participants making a catch-upcontribution.
 35. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality ofparticipant success metrics includes a percent of participants using anauto-rebalance feature.
 36. The method of claim 1, wherein the pluralityof participant success metrics includes a percent of terminatedparticipants electing not to take, withdraw or transfer assets.
 37. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the plurality of participant success metricsincludes a percent of participants with a personal retirement goal. 38.The method of claim 37, wherein the plurality of participant successmetrics includes a percent of participants on track to achieve thepersonal retirement goal.
 39. The method of claim 1, wherein theplurality of fiduciary support metrics includes supported plan designand administration features, plan communications features, planinvestment features, plan fees features, and plan company stockfeatures.
 40. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of accuracymetrics includes a plurality of accuracy standards for executing theagreed upon services.
 41. The method of claim 1, wherein the pluralityof timeliness metrics includes a plurality of timeliness standards forexecuting the agreed upon services.
 42. The method of claim 1, whereinassembling a comparison group includes identifying characteristics fromamong the fee component, the cost component, and the value componentassociated with the selected retirement plan that correspond to aplurality of factors, and identifying which of the plurality ofretirement plans have characteristics that correspond to each of thefactors and which are identical to the identified characteristics of theselected retirement plan or which correspond to a predefined rangebracketing the identified characteristics of the selected retirementplan.
 43. A method of evaluating a retirement plan, comprising the stepsof: a. receiving data corresponding to a plurality of retirement plans;b. storing the data in memory on at least one web-accessible computer;c. determining from the data, via a processor associated with the atleast one web-accessible computer, a fee component associated with eachof the retirement plans and for each of a plurality of service providersassociated with the retirement plans, comprising the steps ofidentifying a plurality of fee sources and an amount of fees associatedwith each fee source for each of the service providers, and for each ofthe service providers, normalizing the amount of fees associated witheach fee source; d. determining from the data via the processor a costcomponent associated with each of the retirement plans and for eachservice provider, comprising the step of determining a plurality ofcomplexity metrics, a plurality of plan and participant servicesmetrics, a plurality of accuracy metrics, and/or a plurality oftimeliness metrics, e. determining from the data via the processor avalue component associated with each of the retirement plans and foreach service provider, comprising the step of determining a plurality ofparticipant success metrics, and/or a plurality of fiduciary supportmetrics; f. assembling, via the processor, a comparison group from amongthe plurality of retirement plans; and g. providing, via the processor,a comparison of the fee component, the cost component, and the valuecomponent associated with a selected retirement plan to the feecomponent, cost component, and the value component associated with thecomparison group.
 44. A method of evaluating a retirement plan,comprising the steps of: a. receiving data corresponding to a pluralityof retirement plans; b. storing the data in memory on at least oneweb-accessible computer; c. determining from the data, via a processorassociated with the at least one web-accessible computer, a feecomponent, a cost component, and a value component associated with eachof the retirement plans and for each of a plurality of service providersassociated with the retirement plans; d. assembling, via the processor,a comparison group from among the plurality of retirement plans; e.providing, via the processor, a comparison of the fee component, thecost component, and the value component associated with a selectedretirement plan to the fee component, cost component, and the valuecomponent associated with the comparison group; and f. delivering viathe processor and via email to a user at least one report comprising thecomparison.